Case: Moody v. Mayorkas
1:24-cv-00762 | U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Filed Date: March 19, 2024
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case presents a challenge to a final rule regarding changes to fees charged for immigration benefits that became effective on April 1, 2024.
On March 19, 2024, a private Canadian citizen, IT Service Alliance, and American Immigrant Investor Alliance brought suit in the District of Colorado against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, a bureau of DHS. This case was assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney.
Through private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged a Final Rule regarding changes to fees charged for immigration benefits that was scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2024. The Final Rule, formally titled the “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements,” imposed a non-waivable Asylum Program Fee on employment-based petitioners and more than doubled immigrant investor fees through the Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) program. The plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule is unlawful because it was enacted without proper notice and comment, imposed an arbitrary fee on certain employment-based petitioners, and significantly increased fees on immigrant investors without completing a statutorily required fee study as mandated by Congress. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that the rule violates the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully diverting funds intended for benefit adjudication to other activities like enforcement and investigation. The plaintiffs contended that these actions are arbitrary and capricious and cause substantial harm to immigrant investors and employers.
On March 25, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), requesting that the Court enjoin the defendants from implementing the Final Rule in its entirety to maintain the status quo while the Court considers the merits. The plaintiffs argued that without a TRO, they would suffer irreparable harm because the fees they would be required to pay would not be recoverable under the APA.
The Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO on March 29, 2025. The Court first found that the plaintiffs failed to show that any alleged harm would be great or immediate. In particular, the Court found that the Canadian individual would only have to pay an additional $5,775 in fees, which would not constitute a substantial burden. Additionally, the Court held plaintiffs failed to show a risk of immediate irreparable harm because the Canadian individual’s deadline to file her visa document is almost two years from now and they could recover any unlawful fees from the Federal Claims Court. The Court also weighed the plaintiffs’ unnecessarily delayed filing of their motion for a temporary restraining order against them. Next, the Court found that the injury to the defendants if they granted the plaintiffs’ request would outweigh any potential harm to the plaintiffs because UCIS is almost entirely funded by the fees they collect. Because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy two of the four TRO factors, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion.
On October 23, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of New Regulatory Authority, notifying the Court that the defendants had purported to complete the statutorily required EB-5 study, which they had not yet done when they initially implemented the Final Rule. After completing the study, the defendants published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 23, 2025, which indicated that they would lower EB-5 related filing fees pursuant to the findings of the study. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ intent to lower fees was a concession that they had been overcharging fees since the Final Rule went into effect in April 2024.
Pursuant to the plaintiffs’ notice, the Court stayed UCIS’s Final Rule in part on November 12, 2025. Specifically, the court ordered a stay of the Final Rule’s imposition of EB-5 fees that were promulgated and imposed prior to and without the guidance of the mandatory fee study. The court concluded that USCIS acted contrary to law in implementing the visa fees in the Final Rule before the completion of the fee study. The stay left the majority of the Final Rule intact, finding that the Plaintiffs either lacked standing to challenge or failed to show that the rest of the rule was the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action. In particular, the court found that the Asylum Program Fee was not the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, and therefore the court rejected the APA challenge to that fee. The Court noted that a new notice and comment period regarding the defendants’ revised fee rule based on the completed fee study was expected to end on December 22, 2025, which would likely lead to a final rule properly promulgated, potentially mooting Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Court additionally ordered the parties to file a joint status report by January 12, 2025.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (11/23/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68357075/parties/moody-v-mayorkas/
Bless, Jesse Matthew (Colorado)
Galati, Matthew Tony (Colorado)
Liao, Cynthia (Colorado)
McMahon, Madeline Marie (Colorado)
Riess, Daniel M. (Colorado)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68357075/moody-v-mayorkas/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:29 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 19, 2024
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A private Canadian citizen, IT Service Alliance, and American Immigrant Investor Alliance
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of Colorado 1:24-cv-00762
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Work authorization - procedures
Case Summary of Moody v. Mayorkas, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/47304/ (last updated 11/23/2025).