- A federal judge dismissed an H-1B lawsuit involving an eighteen-month consular processing delay for an Indian tech worker.
- The court ruled the delay was not legally unreasonable, despite the applicant’s separation from his U.S. citizen family.
- This decision makes it harder for workers to use writs of mandamus to bypass administrative processing queues.
An Indian software engineer’s lawsuit over an 18-month consular delay ended in defeat July 10, leaving Navdeep Sharma separated from his wife and two children in Georgetown, Texas. The family members are all U.S. citizens.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly dismissed Sharma’s case after finding that the delay in his H-1B visa processing was not legally unreasonable. Sharma has remained in India for approximately 18 months while waiting to return to his TCS job.
The decision also rejected his effort to force faster action through the courts. Sharma’s application entered administrative processing after a visa interview in Hyderabad in January 2025.
Free toolH-1B Cost Calculator OnlineHis absence has put his 25-year career with Tata Consultancy Services at significant risk, according to information he gave the court. He said he could not perform his duties from India.
Kelly acknowledged the family’s “emotional and financial difficulties.” But the judge said an order advancing Sharma’s case could disadvantage other applicants who were also waiting for visa decisions.
“I can see no reason for the court to ‘bump him to the front of the line’ ahead of countless others awaiting visa decisions.”
The petition cleared one stage, but the consular interview did not
TCS filed Sharma’s extension petition in December 2023, seeking validity through March 2027. USCIS approved it in early 2024, but that approval did not complete the separate visa process required for his return.
The case then moved through several additional steps:
| Date | Case development |
|---|---|
| December 2023 | TCS filed an H-1B extension petition through March 2027. |
| Early 2024 | USCIS approved the petition. |
| January 2025 | Sharma attended a visa interview in Hyderabad and received a Section 221(g) refusal. |
| Early 2025 | He underwent two separate medical examinations. |
| July 2025 | His online visa status briefly showed “Approved,” but the consulate issued another 221(g) refusal when he appeared there. |
| July 2025 | The consulate requested a list of all his social media accounts. |
| September 2025 | Sharma filed a federal lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus. |
| July 10, 2026 | The U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit. |
The Department of State describes a 221(g) refusal as a “technical refusal,” meaning the applicant has not yet established eligibility. The department’s administrative-processing guidance gives no fixed completion period for these cases.
Kelly found no basis to move one pending case ahead of others
The judge assessed the delay under the TRAC factors, the framework drawn from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC. That analysis asks whether an agency’s delay has become unreasonable in light of the circumstances.
Kelly concluded that compelling faster action for Sharma could unfairly disadvantage applicants facing similar delays. He also ruled that Sharma lacked standing to sue the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The opinion treated visa adjudications as the sovereign responsibility of individual consular officers. That reasoning limited the relief Sharma could seek from the senior officials named in the case, Sharma v. Rubio, et al.
The dismissal followed Sharma’s September 2025 request for a writ of mandamus, a legal mechanism used to seek an order compelling government action. The court declined to order the faster decision he requested.
The ruling raises the barrier for similar mandamus cases
Legal experts said the outcome could make it harder for thousands of Indian tech workers caught in 221(g) processing to ask courts to force government action. A judge weighing a delay claim may consider not only the applicant’s hardship, but also the effect of moving that case ahead of others.
That creates separate risks for workers and employers. An employer may have an approved petition, while the employee still lacks the visa needed to return and resume work in the United States.
Sharma’s case also arrived during a period of tighter scrutiny around consular processing. A USCIS policy memo dated May 22, 2026, described adjustment of status, the process for seeking a Green Card from inside the United States, as an “extraordinary form of relief.” The agency said most applicants should expect consular processing abroad. USCIS published the policy materials in its Policy Manual.
The dispute also followed implementation of a $100,000 one-time fee for certain new H-1B petitions under Presidential Proclamation 10973. Appellate courts are considering challenges to that fee. The material in Sharma’s case concerns his consular processing and visa refusals.
A worker or employer considering litigation should examine the petition record, consular history and applicable jurisdiction-specific law with qualified counsel. The July 10 dismissal illustrates how the TRAC analysis and standing rules can shape such cases when other applicants are waiting.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
