Solanki v. Jaddou

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UDESHKUMAR
KHEMABHAI SOLANKI,
Plaintiff,
versus
UR M. JADDOU,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02996
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Udeshkumar Khemabhai Solanki proceeds
here pro se. He brings claims under the Administrative
Procedure Act to compel Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, Director
of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to
issue a bona fide determination on his pending Form I-918
and related Form I-765 work authorization. Dkt 1. The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 5.
Pending is a motion by Defendant to dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dkt 17. Defendant argues that
(i) Plaintiff fails to identify any provision that requires
USCIS to make a bona fide determination within a
particular time frame, and (ii) subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking over Plaintiff’s claims because such
determinations are discretionary and thus insulated from
judicial review. Id at 9–13. Plaintiff didn’t respond.
Judge Bryan recommends that the Rule 12(b)(1)
motion be granted because USCIS decisions regarding
bona fide determinations for Form I-918 petitions and
related work authorizations are discretionary and thus
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02996 Document 19 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
unreviewable under 8 USC §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). See Dkt 18
at 5–8.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 18.
The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction by Defendant Ur M. Jaddou is GRANTED.
Dkt 17.
The identical sealed motion by Defendant to dismiss is
DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 16.
All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02996 Document 19 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2