The petitioner in the recent case was a dual national who had maintained lawful status in the United States. His company filed an E-2 Treaty Investor petition based on his second nationality — one from a country not subject to any travel restrictions. Within weeks, USCIS denied it on a contested legal ground: that his Temporary Protected Status (TPS) disqualified him from a change of status under Section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
He filed a Form I-290B Motion to Reopen and Reconsider, arguing the denial contradicted unambiguous statutory language and binding precedent. What happened next is what makes this case worth examining. USCIS placed the motion on an indefinite adjudicative hold — citing internal policy tied to presidential proclamations that restricted visa processing for nationals of his other country of citizenship.
The problem? Those same proclamations contain an explicit carve-out for dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-restricted country. His petition was filed on the basis of his unrestricted nationality. The hold should never have applied to him. USCIS did not respond to inquiries, congressional outreach, or an Inspector General complaint. So he filed suit in federal court.
TIMELINE
Step 1: E-2 Treaty Investor petition filed by petitioner’s company, based on his unrestricted nationality;
Step 2: USCIS denies the petition, finding TPS status disqualifying for change-of-status purposes;
Step 3: Form I-290B Motion to Reopen and Reconsider filed, challenging the denial as legally erroneous;
Step 4: USCIS reveals the I-290B is on an adjudicative hold under policy tied to proclamations targeting nationals of the petitioner’s other country — despite the explicit dual-national exemption;
Step 5: Lawsuit filed in the court, alleging unreasonable agency delay;
Step 6: Parties jointly pause proceedings. USCIS lifts the hold, grants the I-290B, and reopens the underlying E-2 petition;
Step 7: Court grants USCIS’s motion to dismiss as moot — because the petitioner had already received the relief he sought.
OUTCOME
The I-290B was granted, the hold was lifted, and the underlying E-2 petition is now actively pending before USCIS.
Reading the court’s order
On the mootness question, it confirmed that once USCIS granted the I-290B and reopened the underlying petition, there was no remaining injury to redress — and that boilerplate language in a complaint asking for “such other and further relief” cannot retroactively expand what was actually sought. The court also addressed the voluntary cessation doctrine. When a government entity stops the challenged conduct, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a reasonable expectation the conduct will resume. Here, the petitioner raised a legitimate concern: USCIS had not clarified whether the now-pending E-2 petition itself was subject to the same hold. The court left the door open for an amended complaint on that narrower question.
PRACTICAL LESSONS
Always check the exemptions: Proclamation-based holds often carve out dual nationals. Identify which passport governs the petition before accepting that a hold applies;
Build the delay record early: Congressional inquiries, ombudsman requests, and demand letters aren’t just administrative steps — they become the evidentiary foundation for an APA or mandamus claim.
Filing moves agencies: The act of filing in particular circumstances more effective than waiting for a favorable ruling.
