With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as stated in the Complaint, Defendants’ duty to act has not been established. The court is aware of no statutory guidance or binding precedent which is directly on point. The court has therefore reviewed non-binding precedent. Some courts have held that as administrative agencies, the USCIS and INS have a non-discretionary duty to process applications within a reasonable amount of time. Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492, 500 (7th Cir.2002) (“INS did have the duty to adju dicate the appellants’ applications in a reasonable period of time.”); Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 186 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1252-53 (N.D.Ga.2002) (Evans, J.) (requiring agency to make “diligent efforts” to adjudicate visa application) (vacated as moot) ; Agbemaple v. I.N.S., No. 97 C 8547, 1998 WL 292441, at *2 (N.D.Ill. May 18, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held that scheduling

A: holding that adjudication must occur within a reasonable time a contrary position would permit the ins to delay indefinitely congress could not have intended to authorize potentially interminable delays
B: holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority
C: holding that the governments position must be justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person and have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted
D: holding that twoyear delay was not reasonable
A.