Is the RIA's 120-day goal a deadline? What Perez Correa Camarena v. Noem decided

The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act tells USCIS to set fees with the goal of deciding targeted-employment-area petitions in 120 days. An investor who had waited almost two years asked a court to treat that goal as a deadline. The court said no, and explained exactly why.

The case

The plaintiff filed a Form I-526E in July 2024 for an $800,000 investment in a regional center project in a high-unemployment area. He inquired with the Immigrant Investor Program Office and the Ombudsman in February 2026, received no answer, and sued on 2 March 2026 under the APA and the Mandamus Act. Judge Bates dismissed the case on 29 June 2026 in a memorandum opinion also published on GovInfo. An appeal was docketed in the D.C. Circuit as No. 26-5274.

Jurisdiction: a single "may" is not enough

The government argued that the RIA's provision allowing DHS to "process petitions in a manner and order established by the Secretary" removed jurisdiction under section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The court disagreed. Unlike the revocation power in Bouarfa, which combines several words of discretion, this provision uses one, sits next to a mandatory duty to prioritise rural petitions, and must be read with the presumption favouring judicial review. The analysis is useful to any employment-based plaintiff facing the same motion, as discussed in the 2026 jurisdiction fight.

Merits: the goal is a ruler, not a deadline

On the TRAC factors, the court found that USCIS applies a rule of reason, a first-in, first-out inventory approach that prioritises rural petitions. It treated the 120-day figure, placed in the statutory notes to 8 U.S.C. § 1153, as aspirational: a benchmark that "somewhat favors" the plaintiff under factor two, but not a mandatory timetable. Factor four weighed strongly against him because relief would let him jump the line. Financial loss and uncertainty, without a link to health or welfare, did not move factors three and five. The court noted that district courts have generally treated delays of three to five years as often not unreasonable. The dismissal was without prejudice.

What employers and investors should take from it

• Plead harm to health and welfare specifically where it exists, as the TRAC factors for employers already recommend.
• Build evidence that the case is out of sequence: comparable petitions from the same project decided first, unanswered inquiries. The method is in the evidence file.
• Treat the forum as a decision. The D.D.C. profile on Mandamus.com's D.D.C. page and the wider set of summer 2026 decisions show how this district reasons.

A real deadline, for contrast

Where Congress writes a true deadline, the analysis changes. The 120-day period after a naturalization interview in 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) gives the applicant a direct route to court, described on Mandamus.com's § 1447(b) page and its page on N-400 delays. The RIA goal is not of that kind. For the cost side of a long I-526E wait, see I-526E delays and committed capital.

Questions

Did the court say it lacked jurisdiction?

No. It held that it had jurisdiction, then dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege unreasonable delay.

Is the 120-day figure binding on USCIS?

The court treated it as an aspirational goal tied to fee setting, relevant as a benchmark but not a mandatory deadline.

Can the plaintiff try again?

The dismissal was without prejudice, and an appeal was docketed in the D.C. Circuit.

General information, not legal advice. Rules and processing practice change; verify against the agency's own published figures and take advice on your own facts.