Denisov v. Mayorkas
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-06442
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Denisov v. Mayorkas, Judge Illston denied Denisov’s summary-judgment motion and granted defendants’ motion, ruling USCIS’s asylum delay was not unreasonable.
Artem Denisov, whose request to require USCIS to interview and adjudicate his asylum application was rejected, and the federal defendants, who received summary judgment on the claims.
What happened
Denisov v. Mayorkas concerned Artem Denisov’s effort to require the government to schedule an interview and decide his asylum application. Denisov, a Russian citizen who is married to another man, said he feared torture and persecution in Russia because of his sexual orientation.
Denisov argued that USCIS had unreasonably delayed processing his application, which had been pending for more than three years. The defendants argued that USCIS’s scheduling system, competing priorities, and the large asylum backlog made the delay reasonable and that mandamus relief was unavailable.
Judge Susan Illston held that the court had jurisdiction to review the claims, but Denisov could not obtain mandamus relief because he had not shown a clear legal right to enforce the asylum-processing timelines. Applying the factors for unreasonable agency delay, the judge also ruled that the delay was not unreasonable. The court denied Denisov’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Denisov v. Mayorkas · No. 3:23-cv-06442
- Susan Illston
- July 23, 2024
Background
Artem Denisov filed an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on November 27, 2020. USCIS issued a receipt notice and later issued a biometrics notice, but the opinion states that his biometrics appointment had not yet been scheduled. Denisov alleged that he escaped Russia and faced torture and persecution there because of his sexual orientation.
USCIS generally used a “last-in, first-out” scheduling system for affirmative asylum applications. Under that system, applications that required rescheduling received first priority, applications pending 21 days or fewer received second priority, and other pending applications were considered starting with newer filings and moving backward. USCIS also used a second track to process some older backlog cases. By the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2024, the affirmative asylum backlog totaled 1,161,686 applications.
Denisov filed claims under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. He sought an order requiring the defendants to interview him and adjudicate his asylum application.
Jurisdiction
The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review claims based on USCIS’s failure to meet the asylum-processing timeframes in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A). The court rejected that argument. It held that district courts may review under the APA an allegation that USCIS failed to act within a reasonable time, even though the statutory timeframes do not create a private right to enforce those specific deadlines. The court also held that its jurisdiction covered both the Mandamus Act and APA claims because Denisov sought the same relief under both statutes.
Mandamus Claim
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that can require a federal officer or agency to perform a legally required duty. The court explained that a claimant must show a clear and certain right, a nondiscretionary duty that is plainly required, and the lack of another adequate remedy.
The court held that Denisov failed to satisfy the first requirement. It relied on decisions holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A) cannot support mandamus relief because 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) prevents enforcement of those timing requirements as a private right of action. The court therefore found that Denisov failed to state a claim under the Mandamus Act and held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on that claim.
APA Unreasonable-Delay Claim
The APA requires agencies to act on matters within a reasonable time. The court applied six factors used to determine whether agency action has been unreasonably delayed:
- Whether the agency follows a reasonable decision-making rule.
- Whether Congress provided a timetable or other indication of the expected speed.
- Whether health and welfare concerns make the delay less tolerable.
- The effect of speeding up one case on the agency’s higher or competing priorities.
- The nature and extent of the interests harmed by the delay.
- Whether the agency acted improperly or in bad faith.
The court found that the first factor favored the defendants because USCIS’s last-in, first-out system was a reasonable administrative policy and Denisov’s application had been pending for more than three years, which was shorter than delays that courts had typically found unreasonable. The second factor was neutral because Congress had identified expected processing times but had not made those timeframes enforceable and had left USCIS some discretion.
The court considered the third and fifth factors together and found that they favored the defendants. Although the court recognized that Denisov’s delay was difficult and that he alleged fear of persecution if returned to Russia, it concluded that he had not identified specific health or welfare harms beyond those commonly experienced by asylum applicants. The court also noted that his application remained pending while he stayed in the United States.
The fourth factor favored the defendants because USCIS had competing priorities, including credible-fear and reasonable-fear screenings, other border-related work, and asylum applications filed before Denisov’s. Denisov did not address those priorities with contrary evidence. The sixth factor favored neither side because Denisov did not allege bad faith, but the absence of alleged bad faith did not automatically favor the defendants.
In total, four factors favored the defendants and two were neutral. The court held that USCIS’s delay in adjudicating Denisov’s asylum application was not unreasonable and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the APA claim.
Disposition
The court denied Denisov’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The order was signed by United States District Judge Susan Illston on July 23, 2024.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.