Grinberg v. Swacina

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to consider complaints regarding “the pace at which immigration decisions are made” in a case involving I-485 applications
• holding “that Congress intended to include the pace [of adjudicating Form I–485 petitions] within [USCIS’s] discretionary function”
• holding “that Congress intended to include the pace [of adjudicating Form I–485 petitions] within [USCIS’s] discretionary function”
• “That Congress did not [provide definite time limits on adjudication] here reflects its intent to leave the pace of adjudication discretionary with the United States Attorney General and outside the scope of judicial review.”
• “[I]f Congress intended to confer jurisdiction on a federal court to review the pace of adjudication for adjustment of status applications, it would have expressly provided for a time limitation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).