If you are waiting on a pending H-4 EAD, a standalone Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or an EAD and Advance Parole (EAD/AP) combo card tied to a pending I-485, you are not alone. Work authorization delays at USCIS have become one of the most common and urgent problems facing employment-based immigrants in 2026. USCIS’s own published processing times for standalone EADs have stretched to a staggering 15.5 months. For someone whose work authorization has lapsed, or who is about to lose it, that is not just frustrating, it is financially devastating.

The good news: you are not powerless. There are several tools available, ranging from administrative requests to federal litigation. This article walks through each option, what to realistically expect, and how to think about escalating if the earlier steps do not produce results.

Why Are EAD Delays Happening Again?

H-4 EAD delays are not new. During the first Trump administration, delays ballooned following changes in biometrics scheduling policy, and litigation became one of the primary tools to force decisions. Whether it is bad faith or not, we are back in a similar environment.

USCIS leadership has returned to include immigration restrictionists like Joseph Edlow. The automatic extension of H-4 EADs that previously applied when the H-4 was extended and timely renewal was filed is no longer available. USCIS is also generally not bundling adjudications as they did prior to 2019 and again pursuant to the Edakunni settlement, which compounds the problem. An H-4 holder whose underlying status is extended but whose EAD has not been renewed has no work authorization.

For I-485 filers waiting on EAD/AP combo cards, the situation is equally frustrating. These combo cards are considered “interim benefits” tied to a pending adjustment application, and delays of six months or more have become routine. While the AP never had automatic extension, the EAD did until the October 2025 interim rule getting rid of all automatic extensions. This creates job concerns.

 

Option 1: File as Early as Possible

The single most effective thing you can do is reduce your exposure window. USCIS generally allows I-539 (H-4 change of status or extension) and I-765 (EAD) applications to be filed up to 180 days before the current period of authorized stay expires.

For H-4 EAD renewals specifically, filing the renewal as early as USCIS rules permit gives the agency the maximum possible time to adjudicate before your current EAD expires. In a world where processing times are stretching toward a year, filing at 180 days out rather than 90 or 60 days out can be the difference between a gap in work authorization and a seamless transition.

There is another filing strategy worth knowing. If the H-1B principal beneficiary’s employer has a legitimate business reason to file an H-1B amendment and extension, that filing can sometimes justify an earlier-than-otherwise-permissible I-539/I-765 filing for the H-4 derivative. If your employer is already considering an LCA amendment due to a worksite change, a salary adjustment, or another material change, it is worth discussing with your immigration attorney whether the timing could also benefit a pending or upcoming H-4 EAD renewal.

Option 2: USCIS Service Requests and Inquiries

Once your case has been pending beyond USCIS’s published processing time, you can submit an online case inquiry through the USCIS website. This generates what is essentially a customer service ticket. The agency is supposed to respond within a set timeframe.

We encourage clients to try this step. It is free, it is easy, and it creates a paper trail. That said, we want to be realistic: the vast majority of service requests do not result in an actual adjudication. USCIS typically responds with a form message saying the case is still pending and within processing times, or that it has been escalated for review. For most applicants, the service request will not unlock your EAD.

Still, it is worth doing. A minority of cases do get resolved this way, particularly if there is an administrative hold or data entry issue that a human touch can resolve. That said, success is uncommon, but it is a free option and worth pursuing.

Option 3: Congressional Inquiries

Your U.S. Senator or House Representative has a casework office that can submit an inquiry on your behalf to USCIS. The USCIS Ombudsman (formally the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, or CISOMB) also accepts case assistance requests for cases that appear to be outside normal processing times. That said, the Ombudsman’s office is incredibly depleted due to DOGE cuts.

Like USCIS service requests, these tools are free and should be tried early. They occasionally, though rarely, produce results, particularly for cases that have been stuck due to an administrative error or a missing biometrics appointment. Congressional inquiries can sometimes elevate visibility on a file in a way that a standard service request does not.

However, the realistic success rate for these inquiries in actually producing an adjudication on a delayed EAD is low. We hear from clients frequently who have tried their senator’s office, the ombudsman, and multiple service requests over the course of many months without any movement. At that point, it is time to consider the next option.

Option 4: Federal Court Litigation — APA Complaints to Compel Agency Action

When administrative options have not resolved the delay, federal litigation may become an appropriate next step. When an EAD or AP remains pending for an unreasonable period of time, the applicant may have a basis to file a federal lawsuit to compel USCIS to act.

You will often hear these cases referred to as “mandamus” cases, and that term is widely used, including by applicants, HR professionals, and even many attorneys. In practice, most firms, including ours, bring these cases primarily under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which expressly allows federal courts to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed or withheld. Mandamus is a related legal remedy with its own requirements, and the two approaches have nuanced legal differences. But the goal of both is the same: get the agency to make a decision. For purposes of this article, when we say “litigation to compel a decision,” that is what we mean.

The core legal theory is straightforward: federal agencies have a duty to act on applications within a reasonable time. When USCIS allows an I-765 or I-131 application to remain pending for a prolonged period, that delay may become unreasonable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts evaluate that question using the TRAC factors, and no single amount of time automatically establishes an unreasonable delay.

How the process works in practice:

Once a complaint is filed and properly served, the government must respond under the applicable rules. In some cases, USCIS elects to adjudicate the application rather than continue litigating. In others, the government chooses to defend the lawsuit. Every case proceeds differently, and neither the timing nor the outcome can be guaranteed.

It is worth noting, when bringing these cases, one can only ask, and courts can only require, USCIS to make a decision on the case. If there are legal or factual grounds for denial, USCIS still has that authority. Many H-4 EAD delays stem from administrative backlogs rather than substantive eligibility concerns. In those situations, applicants often receive approvals once USCIS reaches the application. Of course, every case is different, and approval can never be guaranteed. The same general principle applies to EAD/AP combo cards tied to pending I-485 applications.

 What litigation cannot do:

We want to be direct about limitations. Filing a lawsuit does not guarantee an approval. If USCIS has a legitimate basis to deny your application, for example, a problem with the underlying H-1B, a criminal history issue, or a documentation deficiency, a delay lawsuit will not cure that. The lawsuit compels a decision; it does not dictate what that decision will be.

Additionally, the government has the option to fight the lawsuit rather than adjudicate the case. Each case is unique, and USCIS can adapt new litigation strategies that might change at any time. We have navigated these arguments successfully, but applicants should understand going in that litigation is a tool, a powerful one, not a guarantee.

When should you consider litigation?

If your application has remained pending for an extended period and the delay is causing significant hardship, including job loss, financial loss, or travel disruption, it may be appropriate to discuss whether litigation is one available option.

Because every case is different, the appropriate time to consider litigation depends on the specific facts. Waiting until work authorization has already expired can significantly increase the hardship, but filing before a delay has become unreasonable may not be appropriate either.

Putting It All Together: A Practical Roadmap

Here is a simple framework for approaching an EAD delay:

1. File as early as USCIS permits. One hundred eighty days out if possible. Discuss amendment/extension timing with your attorney to see whether earlier filing is available.
2. Submit a USCIS online service request. Once your case is outside the published processing time. It is free and generates a record.
3. Contact your congressional representative’s casework office and the USCIS Ombudsman. Free, and occasionally effective.
4. Consult with an immigration litigation attorney. An attorney can evaluate the facts of your case, the applicable law, and whether litigation is an appropriate option.
5. Consider filing a federal APA complaint. Work with your attorney to assess whether this step is appropriate, which federal district court fits your case, and what the realistic timeline and risks look like.

Final Thoughts

EAD delays in 2026 are a serious and growing problem, and the tools that worked during the first Trump administration to address these delays are being used again. Federal litigation remains the most powerful mechanism available, not because courts rubber-stamp EAD approvals, but because the act of filing a lawsuit can move a case toward a decision, even if the outcome, both on adjudication and the litigation, is never guaranteed

Our litigation team has handled APA unreasonable-delay actions in federal courts across the country. Every case is evaluated individually, and we are candid with prospective clients about both the potential benefits and the limitations of litigation. In some cases, litigation is an appropriate strategy. In others, it is not. Our goal is to help clients make informed decisions based on the specific facts of their case. If your H-4 EAD, standalone EAD, or I-485-based EAD or Advance Parole application has remained pending longer than expected, we would be happy to evaluate your circumstances and discuss the options that may be available.

You can reach our office at info@rnlawgroup.com or visit rnlawgroup.com for more information.

By: Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, where he leads the firm’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration benefits, FOIA requests, and policy and regulatory challenges. Steven is dedicated to delivering practical and effective solutions for clients facing unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration benefits, including Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, green cards, 221(g) decisions, EB-5 delays, and other immigration-related matters. His litigation efforts were instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. government recognizing that under the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are authorized to work incident to their status, eliminating the need for separate EAD applications. This case has transformed work authorization for thousands of families across the United States.