govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-2_26-cv-00668-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
SADIQULLAH SALARZAI, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP 
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 
 
Defendant. 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
: 

Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison 
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. 
Vascura 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on Sadiqullah Salarzai’s Motion for 
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Mot., ECF No. 3.) The 
Court held an informal preliminary conference pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 
65.1(a), at which counsel for both parties appeared. (ECF Nos. 11, 13.) During the 
conference, the Court found Mr. Salarzai’s Motion to be well taken as to his claim 
for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Count I) and his claim for 
unreasonable delay in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (Count 
II). This Opinion and Order memorializes the Court’s ruling. 
Mr. Salarzai, an Afghan national, was lawfully paroled into the United States 
in 2021 and subsequently applied for asylum. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, ECF No. 1.) On 
December 11, 2025, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(“USCIS”) received Mr. Salarzai’s Form I-765 Application for Employment 
Authorization (“EAD Application”), wherein he sought approval to work while his 
Case: 2:26-cv-00668-SDM-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
asylum application was pending. (Id. ¶ 5.) As of the date of this Opinion and Order, 
Mr. Salarzai’s EAD Application has been pending for over 150 days without any 
decision by USCIS. (Id. ¶ 7.) Until USCIS adjudicates his EAD Application, Mr. 
Salarzai is in a precarious position without lawful means to provide for himself and 
his family, including his eight children. (Id. ¶ 1.) 
Mr. Salarzai argues that USCIS violated 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1) by failing to 
process his EAD Application within that regulation’s mandatory 30-day period.1 
(Mot., PAGEID # 62.) He asks the Court to enjoin USCIS from further delay and 
require USCIS to immediately adjudicate his EAD Application. (Id., PAGEID # 65.) 
In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or 
preliminary injunction (“PI”), the Court considers four factors: (1) whether the 
movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant 
would otherwise suffer irreparable harm; (3) whether the TRO or PI would 
substantially harm third parties; and (4) whether the TRO or PI would serve the 
public interest. See PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, No. 25-3794, 2026 WL 1396626, 
at *2 (6th Cir. May 19, 2026) (citations omitted); York Risk Servs. Grp., Inc. v. 
 
1 At the time Mr. Salarzai filed his EAD Application, the regulation required 
USCIS to process such applications within 30 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1) 
(effective prior to May 29, 2026). Several months later, though, the Department of 
Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued an interim final rule removing the 30-day 
adjudication deadline from the regulation. See USCIS Immigration Fees and 
Related Procedures Required by H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (April 29, 
2026) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 103, 106, 208, 244, 274a). Neither party raised the 
amendment during the preliminary conference. Nevertheless, for purposes of Mr. 
Salarzai’s Motion, the Court finds that he has a vested right to the adjudication of 
his EAD Application under the prior version of the regulation. 
Case: 2:26-cv-00668-SDM-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
Couture, 787 F. App’x 301, 304 (6th Cir. 2019). These four factors are not 
prerequisites but rather must be balanced. In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 
1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985). 
Upon review of the Complaint, the Motion, and all materials filed in support 
thereof and in consideration of the matters discussed during the preliminary 
conference, the Court finds that (1) Mr. Salarzai is substantially likely to succeed on 
the merits of his mandamus and APA claims; (2) Mr. Salarzai will suffer irreparable 
harm absent this Opinion and Order; (3) neither USCIS nor any third party will be 
harmed by issuance of this Opinion and Order; and (4) this Opinion and Order is in 
the public interest. Mr. Salarzai’s Motion is thus GRANTED. The Court further 
WAVIES the security requirement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). 
USCIS is hereby ORDERED to adjudicate Mr. Salarzai’s EAD Application 
on or before June 12, 2026. Additionally, the Court hereby SETS this matter for a 
status conference on June 12, 2026, at a time to be indicated via subsequent Order. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison 
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Case: 2:26-cv-00668-SDM-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight