Shokri Varniab et al v. Edlow et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ZAHRA SHOKRI VARNIAB, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH B. EDLOW, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-10602-SVK
ORDER FOLLOWING JUNE 18, 2026
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
HEARING
In the Court’s Order dated June 12, 2026, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
and ordered Defendants (the “Government”) to show cause why a preliminary injunction should
not issue. Dkt. 83 (the “TRO”). The TRO set a June 16, 2026 deadline for the Government to
respond to the order to show cause and a June 18, 2026 hearing on whether a preliminary
injunction should issue. Id.
The Government filed a timely response to the OSC (Dkt. 86), and both sides appeared at
the June 18, 2026 hearing (see Dkt. 87). At the hearing, the Court heard argument and issued
orders as follows:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: At the hearing, the Court heard argument on the
Government’s position that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons
discussed in the TRO and on the record at the hearing, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first and second (constitutional claims) and fourth and fifth (writ of
mandamus/All Writs Act) causes of action. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs make
colorable constitutional claims regarding the procedures by which USCIS decided their
Form I-485 and Form I-765 applications. As further discussed in the TRO, the Ninth Circuit has
held that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. Chairez v. Mayorkas,
168 F.4th 1227, 1237 (9th Cir. 2026); Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 876 (9th Cir. 2019).
TRO Status: At the hearing, the Government reported that in response to the TRO,
USCIS has reopened both Plaintiffs’ Form I-485 applications and those applications are now
pending. USCIS has also granted both Plaintiffs’ Form I-765 applications and issued Employment
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 88 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
Authorization Documents (“EADs”) to both Plaintiffs that expire in December 2027. Plaintiffs’
counsel acknowledged that both Plaintiffs have received these EADs and that the EAD issued to
Plaintiff Varniab is sufficient to enable her to commence her medical residency on June 22, 2026.
Recent developments regarding the USCIS adjudication hold policies that were the impetus for
this litigation, including the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island in Dorcas v. USCIS vacating and setting aside those policies, were also discussed. In light
of these developments and the Government’s representations at the hearing that the EADs issued
to Plaintiffs will not expire before December 2027 and that Plaintiffs’ Form I-485 applications
have been reopened and are pending, the Court ORDERS that the TRO is DISSOLVED.
Further proceedings: As discussed with and agreed by the Parties at the hearing, the
Parties will meet and confer about next steps in this litigation and appear by videoconference at a
status conference on July 21, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Parties shall file a Joint Status Report by
July 17, 2026 at 12 p.m. (noon) Pacific Daylight Time. If either side takes the position that this
litigation should proceed, the Joint Status Report shall include a joint proposal, or if necessary
separate proposals, for a case schedule (including a deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint in response to the Court’s dismissal of certain claims in the SAC with leave to amend
(see Dkt. 83)), a discovery plan, and the Parties’ positions on whether a preliminary injunction is
necessary during the pendency of the case. The Parties may agree to modest extensions of the
July 17 and 21 deadlines without further leave of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 88 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 2