On Friday, July 10th, Judge Timothy J. Kelly in the United States rejected the lawsuit brought by Indian citizen Navdeep Sharma. Sharma had accused the U.S. federal government of illegally delaying the processing of his H-1B visa renewal application and had sought a court order to compel visa officials to make a decision.
After Sharma’s last interview at the U.S. Consulate in India, he had been stuck in India for about 18 months. Despite the separation from his American wife and children, which Judge Kelly acknowledged as sympathetic, he ruled that the delay in Sharma’s application was not legally unreasonable, stating that he saw no reason for the court to “cut the line” for him.
According to documents submitted, Sharma had previously worked for Tata Consultancy Services and resided in Georgetown, Texas, with his wife and two children, who are all U.S. citizens.
In December 2023, Sharma’s employer submitted an application to extend his H-1B status until March 2027, which was approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in early 2024.
In January 2025, after Sharma attended a visa interview in Hyderabad, India, U.S. officials refused to issue the visa, requesting him to undergo a medical examination. Following another request from the Consulate, he completed a second medical examination.
In July 2025, Sharma’s online application status changed to “Approved,” prompting him to return to the Consulate to collect his passport. However, Consular officers again refused to issue the visa, requesting him to provide social media account information, leaving him awaiting a final decision since then.
Sharma claimed that since the interview, he had been stuck in India, unable to return to work in the U.S. or reunite with his family, a situation recognized by the court.
Sharma sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior government officials, alleging “unlawful” delays in approving his H-1B visa renewal application.
Judge Kelly held that Sharma failed to prove that senior officials were responsible for the delay and noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had already approved his H-1B renewal application. The judge also ruled that visa decisions were to be made by consular officers, not senior officials in Washington.
Subsequently, Judge Kelly considered whether the delay fell under the category of “unreasonable” as per the legal framework used in visa delay cases in federal courts.
Acknowledging several factors favorable to Sharma, including economic losses and time and money spent with Tata Consultancy Services during the visa processing, Judge Kelly ultimately concluded that the most significant factor favored the government. He noted that Congress had not set a final deadline for processing visa applications, citing previous decisions that considered nearly a two-year delay as typically reasonable.
Judge Kelly wrote, “This delay did not reach the level of an unreasonable delay as determined by the court.”
He further argued that ordering officials to take action on Sharma’s application would effectively prioritize him over other applicants awaiting decisions, at the expense of their interests.
Sharma argued that his application had already been treated specially since officials had requested social media account information before it became a standard requirement. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that expediting his case to avoid disrupting the government’s normal processing flow had not been proven.
The opinion also highlighted that there was no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the defendants.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Sharma had not presented reasonable grounds to prove the delay was unreasonable.
While expressing sympathy for Sharma’s situation, Judge Kelly stated that the difficulties described by Sharma were not enough to warrant judicial intervention.
The court approved the government’s motion to dismiss, bringing the case to a close. The State Department recommended that visa applicants wait at least 180 days after an interview or providing any requested additional information before inquiring about their application, unless in urgent circumstances.
(Reference from Newsweek)