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 FOR EXPEDITED
PRODUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD
Re: Dkt. No. 11
In this action, Plaintiffs Zahra Shokri Varniab and Ashkan Pourabhari Langroudi have
moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the government Defendants to process Plaintiffs’
pending Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) and Form I-485 (Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) applications without further delay. Dkt. 9.
Plaintiffs have also moved for expedited discovery, specifically for the production of the
Administrative Record (“AR”) relating to USCIS Policy Memorandum (PM-602-0192;
hereinafter, the “‘192 Policy Memo”) pursuant to which Plaintiffs’ applications have been put on
hold. Dkt. 11. The motion for expedited discovery has been thoroughly briefed, and the Court
determines that it can rule on the motion without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Dkt. 18, 19.
Having considered the relevant law and the arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ request for expedited production of the AR for the ‘192 Policy Memo for the reasons
stated herein. In their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs raise numerous challenges to
the ‘192 Policy Memo, several of which address the lawfulness of the policy. Dkt. 9. The Court
cannot fully address these issues without considering the AR. Indeed, in any action filed in this
Court for review of an administrative record, the defendant is required to serve and file the
administrative record within 90 days of receipt of the complaint. Civ. L.R. 16-5. The only
question is whether expedited production of the AR is warranted in this case.
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3

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
Relevant considerations weigh in favor of requiring Defendants to produce the AR
sufficiently in advance of the February 10, 2026 preliminary injunction hearing to allow the Court
and the Parties to evaluate the AR as it bears on the preliminary injunction factors. First and
foremost is the very fact that Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction, which will require the
Court to evaluate their likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, including their claims
under the Administrative Procedure Act. See generally Winter v. National Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (plaintiff’s likelihood of success is one factor considered in
deciding a motion for preliminary injunction). “Generally, judicial review of agency action is
limited to review of the record on which the administrative decision was based.” Thompson v.
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989). “To permit the Court to review the
agency’s reasons for acting, the agency must produce an administrative record, which consists of
‘all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decisionmakers’ at the
time of the decision.” National Urban League v. Ross, No. 20-CV-05799-LHK, 2020 WL
5441356, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Thompson, 885 F.3d at 555). Accordingly, it is
appropriate to require the government to produce an AR in advance of the Court’s consideration of
a motion for preliminary injunction. See National Urban League, 2020 WL 5441356, at *13.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ request for expedited production of the AR in this case is focused and
narrow. Defendants overstate the scope of what Plaintiffs seek when they argue that Plaintiffs
should not be permitted to seek “broad discovery outside the administrative record.” Dkt. 18 at 4-
5. Plaintiffs presently seek the AR, not discovery beyond the AR. See Dkt. 11 at 9 (requesting
“an order mandating Defendants’ production of the Administrative Record”). The Court notes,
however, that Plaintiffs’ request is broader than what Defendants attempt to limit them to: an AR
“limited to Plaintiffs’ Benefit Requests.” Dkt. 18 at 7. In light of the nature of the claims
Plaintiffs make in this case, Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to the AR relating to ‘192 Policy
Memo, not just an AR regarding their individual immigration applications.
Finally, Defendants have not shown that expedited production of the AR would be unduly
burdensome. They remark that Plaintiffs “do not identify specific files, documents, or other
materials they need from Defendants.” Dkt. 18 at 8. However, it is Defendants who enacted the
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
‘192 Policy Memo and who are in a position to identify and collect “all documents and materials
directly or indirectly considered by agency decisionmakers” at the time of the decision as required
to compile the AR. Thompson, 885 F.3d at 555. Defendants have offered no reason why they
cannot do so on an expedited basis.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. To facilitate preparation by the Court and
the Parties for the February 10, 2026 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction,
Defendants must file and serve the administrative record for the ‘192 Policy Memo by
February 3, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-10602-SVK Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3