U.S. Code » Title 8 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

8 U.S.C. § 1571

Purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 8 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) PurposesThe purposes of this subchapter are to—(1) provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the mechanisms it needs to eliminate the current backlog in the processing of immigration benefit applications within 1 year after October 17, 2000, and to maintain the elimination of the backlog in future years; and(2) provide for regular congressional oversight of the performance of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in eliminating the backlog and processing delays in immigration benefits adjudications.(b) Policy

It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application, except that a petition for a nonimmigrant visa under section 1184(c) of this title should be processed not later than 30 days after the filing of the petition.

(Pub. L. 106–313, title II, § 202, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1262.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

For short title of title II of Pub. L. 106–313, which enacted this subchapter, as the “Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000”, see section 201 of Pub. L. 106–313, set out as a Short Title of 2000 Amendment note under section 1551 of this title.

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 257 cases (231 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Sawan v. Chertoff, 589 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sawan v. Chertoff, 589 F. Supp. 2d 817 (S.D. Tex. 2008). · cites it 5× “Title 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b) states: “It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.”
Kashkool v. Chertoff, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (D. Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Liu, 2007 WL 2435157 , * 9 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1571 which provides “It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigrant benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application_”).”
Adrian Da Costa v. Immigr. Inv. Prog. Off., 80 F.4th 330 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “1262 , 1262 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b)). Plaintiffs allege that, “[w]hile not mandatory, § 1571(b) certainly provides a benchmark for ‘reasonableness’ for immigrant visa petitions.”
Bemba v. Holder, 930 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (E.D. Mo. 2013). · cites it 4× “Rather, 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b) provides merely a “sense of Congress” regarding the proposed processing times.”
Fei Bian v. Hillary Clinton, 605 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Bian nevertheless contends that the USCIS has a “plainly prescribed” duty to adjudicate her application promptly under 8 U.S.C. § 1571 , which states that “[i]t is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than…”
Khan v. Johnson, 65 F. Supp. 3d 918 (C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b). Several courts have found this “sense of Congress” highly relevant under the second factor.”
Hong Wang v. Chertoff, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (W.D. Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b). 5 Wang’s application has been pending more than six times as long.”
Antonishin v. Keisler, 627 F. Supp. 2d 872 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “8 U.S.C. § 1571 . We do not believe that this expectation compels the agency to request expedition when a name check has been pending for a longer period of time.”
Mohsenzadeh v. Kelly, 276 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “Third, Beyene rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b) to suggest that the Congress expected action on 1-485 applications to be completed within a certain amount of time.”
Ahmadi v. Chertoff, 522 F. Supp. 2d 816 (N.D. Tex. 2007). “8 U.S.C.A. § 1571 (b) (“It is the sense of Congress that the processing of immigration benefits should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.”
Wang v. Chertoff, 676 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Idaho 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 555 (b) in tandem with 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b). Section 555(b) states that “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it,” while section…”
Hosseini v. Napolitano, 12 F. Supp. 3d 1027 (E.D. Ky. 2014). “1] He further contends that pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act provide that 1-485 applications “should be completed no later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application,” 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b), and seeks mandamus relief under 28 U.”
Show all 257 citing cases →
— 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) — 5 cases
Arab v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2022).
Khan v. Bitter (D.D.C. 2024).
Rodriguez v. Noem (D. Conn. 2025).
Blinken (S.D. Ind. 2026).
Karuna Malla, et al. v. Marco Rubio, et al. (D. Md. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.