What Your U-Visa Stage, Travel Request, and Agency Response Do and Do Not Establish

If you are waiting for a U visa, you may be wondering whether your place on the waiting list, a travel request you submitted, or USCIS's silence on that request gives you legal leverage—either to leave and return to the United States or to force agency action in federal court. A September 2026 Ninth Circuit decision, U Visa Appellants v. Director, USCIS, No. 24-6824, offers a careful answer: what those facts establish depends heavily on which processing stage you occupy and what your record actually contains. This page explains the court's reasoning in plain terms so you can assess your own situation before making any decisions.

Two Groups of Petitioners, Two Different Legal Positions

The Ninth Circuit drew a sharp line between two categories of plaintiffs. The first group consisted of petitioners who had received waiting-list determinations. The second group consisted of petitioners who had received bona-fide determinations, or BFDs. Neither stage is final approval of U-visa status, and the court analyzed the two groups under different asserted legal duties and injuries. The court treated these groups differently at every step of its analysis, and understanding which group you belong to is the first question you must answer.

What Being on the Waiting List Does and Does Not Establish

Placement on the U-visa waiting list confirms that USCIS has reviewed your petition and found it approvable, subject to visa availability. That is a meaningful administrative milestone. What it does not do, the court explained, is entitle you to any particular form of interim relief. The governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2), gives USCIS discretion to grant deferred action or parole to waiting-list petitioners and does not require either one as a matter of right; USCIS retains discretion to grant one or both depending on the circumstances. Because the regulation uses permissive rather than mandatory language, waiting-list petitioners could not use the Administrative Procedure Act's section 706(1) to compel USCIS to grant parole. A court can order an agency to act under that provision only when the law requires a specific action; discretionary choices are outside its reach.

What a Travel Request Does and Does Not Establish

Submitting an individualized advance-parole request can be important to the administrative record, but advance parole is discretionary, does not guarantee admission, and does not resolve every consequence of departure. The waiting-list plaintiffs in this case had not alleged, and the record did not show, that each of them had individually submitted an advance-parole request and received a denial. Without that individualized request-and-denial sequence, the waiting-list plaintiffs had not shown final agency action for review under APA section 706(2). That was distinct from their section 706(1) claim, which failed because advance parole is discretionary and a court cannot compel discretionary agency action under that provision. A travel request that has not been formally acted upon, or that was never individually submitted, leaves a gap in the administrative record that courts cannot bridge.

What USCIS's Silence or Inaction Does and Does Not Establish

Agency delay or silence can sometimes support an APA claim, but the court's analysis makes clear that not every form of inaction qualifies. For waiting-list petitioners, the absence of a parole grant does not by itself constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review, because the agency retains discretion over whether to grant parole at all. For BFD petitioners, the analysis is more nuanced—the court found that at least some alleged injuries warranted further examination—but it did not hold that USCIS had acted unlawfully or that any petitioner was entitled to relief. Silence from USCIS is a fact in your record, but it is not automatically a legal wrong that a court can remedy.

The Bona-Fide-Determination Plaintiffs: A Narrower Remand

The court's treatment of BFD petitioners was more favorable procedurally, but only in a limited sense. The panel first affirmed rejection of the BFD plaintiffs' parole-related injury theory because the undisputed evidence showed that waiting-list placement would not improve a domestic petitioner's parole prospects. It remanded only the other alleged injuries that had not yet been examined at the trial level: unlawful-presence accrual, the risk of evidence loss from delayed full adjudication, and the difference between regulatory and policy stability. The Ninth Circuit did not find that BFD petitioners had standing, did not order USCIS to grant parole, did not set any deadline for U-visa adjudication, and did not decide the merits of their claims. The remand was a procedural instruction to look more carefully, not a ruling in the petitioners' favor. Judge Bea, writing separately, would have dismissed the BFD claim entirely on the ground that no discrete legally required act had been identified. That dissent signals that the BFD theory remains genuinely contested even within the court.

Evidence and Record Implications for Your Own Case

The court's reasoning has direct consequences for how you should think about your own administrative record. First, if you intend to seek advance parole, you should submit an individualized, documented request through the proper USCIS channel and preserve evidence of both the submission and any response. A general awareness that parole exists, or a group advocacy effort, is not a substitute for a personal request-and-denial record. Second, your processing stage matters: waiting-list status and BFD status carry different regulatory frameworks and different litigation postures. Third, if USCIS has taken any action on your file—even a denial of a collateral request—that action should be documented carefully, because finality of agency action is a threshold requirement for most APA claims. For more on how BFD status intersects with detention, see our page on U-visa bona-fide determination and detention.

Travel Considerations Before and After This Decision

Leaving the United States without advance parole while a U-visa petition is pending carries serious risks that this decision does not reduce. The Ninth Circuit did not authorize travel, did not expand parole rights, and did not create any new pathway for waiting-list petitioners to depart and return safely. If you are considering travel, the threshold question is whether you hold a valid, individually granted advance-parole document—not whether you are on the waiting list or have a BFD. Our related analysis of advance parole and APA finality in this case explores the procedural requirements in greater depth. If you are also facing removal proceedings, the stakes of any travel decision are compounded; our deportation defense page explains how pending U-visa petitions interact with removal.

Practical Takeaways for Petitioners Evaluating Next Steps

Several practical points follow from the court's analysis. Your processing stage—waiting list versus BFD—determines which legal arguments are even available to you. A travel request that was never individually submitted and formally denied is unlikely to support an APA section 706(2) claim. Agency discretion over the form of interim relief means that a court cannot simply order parole for waiting-list petitioners even if delay seems unreasonable. The remand for BFD petitioners is a procedural opening, not a victory, and the outcome at the district court level is uncertain. Finally, the dissent's position reminds petitioners and their counsel that the BFD theory has not been unanimously accepted. For context on how pending U-visa status has been treated in related litigation, see our discussion of Vaca-Flores and the limits of pending U-visa status.

Questions About Your U-Visa Stage, Travel Request, and Agency Record

Does being on the U-visa waiting list give me the right to advance parole so I can travel?

No. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that the regulation governing waiting-list petitioners permits USCIS to grant deferred action or parole but does not require either. Waiting-list status alone does not create an enforceable right to advance parole, and a court cannot compel USCIS to issue it under the APA's provision for compelling discrete legally required agency action.

What does my record need to show before I can challenge USCIS's failure to act on a travel request in federal court?

The court held that waiting-list plaintiffs who had not alleged individual requests and denials lacked the final agency action required for APA section 706(2) review. As a practical record-building step—not a guarantee of review or relief—a person contemplating such a challenge should submit an individualized, documented request and preserve any USCIS response. General delay or group-level inaction is not a substitute for that individualized record.

What did the Ninth Circuit actually decide for bona-fide-determination petitioners, and what remains unresolved?

The court remanded the BFD petitioners' case to the district court to examine other alleged injuries that had not yet been considered. It did not find standing, did not rule on the merits, did not order any relief, and did not set any agency deadline. A dissenting judge would have dismissed the BFD claim entirely. The outcome on remand is genuinely open, and BFD petitioners should not treat the remand as a favorable ruling on the substance of their claims.