Brian Kiprotech v. United States Citizen and Immigration Services et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRIAN KIPROTECH, CASE NO. 25-cv-05457-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al., 11

Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff has been granted leave to 15 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. # 5. When an IFP application has been granted, “the court 16 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines”: 17 (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or 18 (B) the action or appeal— (i) is frivolous or malicious; 19 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 20 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 21 According to Plaintiff: on February 6, 2025, he submitted a Form I-918 (Petition 22 for U Nonimmigrant Status) and I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization). Dkt. 23 # 1-1 at 5. He maintains that United Status Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) still 24 l has taken no action on either, and that this delay is unreasonable under the Administrative 2 || Procedures Act (APA). Jd. at 5-6. He also acknowledges that agency delay is evaluated 3 for reasonableness under the six-factor TRAC test. /d. at 7. 4 Yet Plaintiff fails to state a claim because the length of his delay—299 days—“‘is 5 simply much shorter than those which courts have typically found to be unreasonable.” 6 || Liu v. Denayer, 2022 WL 17370527, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2022) (eighteen-month delay 7 did not warrant judicial intervention); see In re California Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 8 1110, 1125 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The cases in which courts have afforded relief [using g TRAC factors] have involved delays of years, not months.”) (collecting cases); see also 10 Ghadami v. United States Dep ’t of Homeland Sec., 2020 WL 1308376, at *8 (D.D.C. Mar. 11 19, 2020) (“[M]any courts evaluating similar delays have declined to find a two-year 12 || period to be unreasonable as a matter of law.”). 13 Thus, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 14 The case is dismissed with prejudice because no amendment can change the length of 15 Plaintiffs delay in having his immigration forms adjudicated. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 16 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (when a court dismisses a self-represented plaintiff's 17 complaint, the court must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[uJnless it is absolutely clear 1g || that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 19 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2025.

C[eha_H, Chae 71 John H. Chun United States District Judge 22 23 24