Federal Immigration Litigation

What We Do

Rulemaking & High-Impact APA Litigation 

We file Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges when rules, guidance, policy memoranda, or entrenched adjudication practices stray from statutory authority, undermine due process, or impose evidentiary demands the law does not support. These cases are built to do more than win one matter; they are designed to clarify the law and improve the rules of the road for everyone who follows.

Typical patterns include new regulations, policies, or agency “interpretations” that restrict access to benefits for high-skilled applicants or introduce outcome-determinative criteria without proper notice and comment; program-level shifts, formal or informal, that yield inconsistent results across service centers, consular posts, or circuits; and guidance that instructs adjudicators to discount qualified expert testimony, peer-reviewed publications, or market validation in ways that conflict with statute and regulation.

We litigate with record strategy from the outset by framing claims for review under APA §706(2), moving where appropriate to complete or supplement the administrative record, and preserving issues for appeal. The goal is simple: restore fidelity to statute and regulation, require reasoned decision making, and produce clarity that endures beyond a single case.

High-Skilled Denial Litigation

We directly challenge improper denials in the classifications that drive U.S. competitiveness including extraordinary ability, national-interest, and other talent-based or research-driven categories. These suits focus the court on three recurring legal errors: unreasoned rejection of expert testimony or other probative evidence, misapplication of evidentiary standards that should be applied flexibly and holistically rather than as rigid checklists, and misunderstandings of the petitioner’s field that substitute assumptions for a careful reading of the record in complex disciplines such as AI, biotech, fintech, advanced manufacturing, and energy.

We identify legal and procedural errors and tie them to APA standards instead of relitigating factual disputes; we determine whether a motion to complete or supplement the administrative record is warranted and position the matter for remand with instructions rather than an open-ended do-over; and we brief with appellate review in mind so questions presented and standards of review are clean and durable. We pursue these cases for Colombo & Hurd clients and for outside counsel nationwide when a strong agency filing has been denied and federal court relief is the appropriate next step.

Unreasonable-Delay & Mandamus (APA §706(1))

Delays that run for months or years can derail hiring, research timelines, investment milestones, and family plans. When a discrete agency action has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, we bring APA §706(1) and mandamus actions to compel a decision. Our delay practice is distinguished by disciplined use of the Time, Reason, Administrative burden, and Consensus (TRAC) factors aligned with statutory priorities, agency guidance, and the public and private stakes; by pre-suit rigor that builds a clear record of service requests, ombudsman and Congressional engagement, and escalation to agency counsel so the court sees litigation as a last resort; and by deliberate venue and remedy strategy that compels timely action while preserving the client’s merits arguments.

In consular matters, where prolonged administrative processing blocks visa issuance, we frame claims that respect consular doctrines while squarely addressing unreasonable inaction. The objective is prompt adjudication consistent with law, not a predetermined outcome the agency has not yet reached; our filings are calibrated to that line and courts understand the difference.

Who We Represent

We represent high-skilled professionals across STEM and creative sectors, including scientists, engineers, founders, product leaders, artists, athletes, and scholars; employers and investors ranging from venture-backed startups to public companies, research labs, universities, hospitals, and funds; and families and individuals whose plans depend on fair, timely adjudication and lawful application of the rules. Because immigration strategy sits inside business and research realities, we work with an understanding of funding rounds and runway, grant cycles, lab staffing, clinical trials, product launches, regulatory milestones, and compliance obligations.

How We Work

Case triage and strategy. Every matter begins with a written assessment that addresses claims and defenses, venue, standard of review, record posture, remedies, timing, risks, and the appellate path. We prioritize cases where litigation can deliver meaningful client relief and where the legal questions merit judicial attention, and we decline matters better suited to agency reconsideration. When prudent, we pair litigation with a refreshed filing strategy, consular route planning, or employer mobility solutions to protect near-term objectives while the case proceeds.    

Record and evidence. We insist on administrative-record discipline, pressing for a complete, indexed record and resisting post-hoc rationales. Where extra-record material is legally permissible we make a targeted, well-supported showing. Sensitive information, including proprietary data, trade secrets, and Institutional Review Boards (IRB)-protected research, is safeguarded through sealing, protective orders, and careful redaction.    
    
Briefing and remedies. Our merits briefing is anchored in statutory text, regulation, and controlling precedent, explaining precisely why the agency’s path cannot be reconciled with the law. Remedies are tailored to the harm: vacatur when a rule cannot stand, remand with instructions when the correct standard must be applied, and injunctive or declaratory relief when timing or clarity is the injury.  
    
Collaboration and communication. We operate as one team with clients and partners, coordinating with in-house counsel, HR and global mobility leaders, principal investigators, and outside counsel so business and research timelines remain central. Communication has a clear cadence: you know what we are doing, what comes next, and how each step advances the endgame.

Our Litigation Principles

We bring strategic cases when government action threatens due process, fairness, or the statutory framework, with the aim of securing relief for the client and clarity for others who follow. We seek to fix legal standards, not only outcomes, so agencies know how to decide future cases lawfully. We respect the line between process and merits by compelling timely, lawful decisions in delay suits and correcting legal errors in denial suits, a distinction that builds judicial trust. We choose venue and posture deliberately, recognizing that some districts and circuits see APA disputes more often and that remedy framing matters. We practice with discipline rather than drama: strong facts, clean records, precise remedies, and credible timelines.

Leadership & Experience

Sarah Wilson’s DOJ background informs how we frame cases, read the record, and plan remedies. She supervised large national dockets, helped shape litigation strategy in complex statutory disputes, and understands how agencies defend their actions in court. That experience is reflected in our practice’s discipline—not in the spotlight. The focus remains on the client, the law, and the outcome.

Working With Us

Whether you’re an applicant or an employer, we can take the lead or integrate with your in-house team to move the matter forward. For outside counsel, we serve as your federal-litigation partner, co-counseling denial and delay suits that are grounded in strong agency records. When the issues reach beyond a single case, we help convene the right voices to file amicus briefs that sharpen the questions and strengthen the remedy. If your case needs a court to enforce the rules, we’ll build it carefully and completely, with a cadence you can trust and results that stand up in court.