Maxhuni v. Mayorkas

Background

Fisnik Maxhuni filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on July 22, 2019. He and his family completed biometrics appointments in August 2019. After contacting the New York Asylum Office in 2020 and Senator Charles Schumer’s office in 2023, Maxhuni filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. The opinion states that Defendants had not acted on the application by the time of the ruling.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. For purposes of that motion, the court treated the Complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for Maxhuni.

Mandamus claim

The court denied Maxhuni’s application for a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a court order requiring a federal officer or agency to perform a duty. To obtain one, a plaintiff must show a clear right to the requested relief, a plainly defined and required government duty, and no other adequate remedy.

The court held that Maxhuni did not show a clear right to have his asylum application decided within the timing provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law states that asylum interviews should generally occur within 45 days and final adjudication within 180 days, but it also expressly says that those provisions do not create an enforceable right or benefit against the United States, its agencies, or its officers. The court therefore denied mandamus relief.

Administrative Procedure Act claim

The Complaint also alleged that Defendants had unreasonably delayed action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which permits courts to require agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

The court applied the six factors commonly used to evaluate unreasonable delay. It gave particular weight to whether the agency followed a reasonable scheduling system and whether ordering action in one case would interfere with higher or competing agency priorities.

The court concluded that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “last-in-first-out” system—under which newer asylum applications may be scheduled before older ones—was a reasonable method for processing the applications. It also found that ordering action on Maxhuni’s application would move it ahead of other applicants who also deserved prompt decisions. The statutory processing deadlines did not change that conclusion because the statute makes those deadlines unenforceable.

The court acknowledged Maxhuni’s allegations that the delay caused uncertainty, emotional and psychological distress, financial and planning difficulties, and effects on his family. But it concluded that, under the circumstances alleged, those burdens did not outweigh the other factors. The opinion also noted that Maxhuni did not allege bad faith by the officials. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Administrative Procedure Act claim was therefore granted.

Remaining claims and disposition

Maxhuni sought a declaratory judgment that the delays violated the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found no entitlement to a declaration based on the Immigration and Nationality Act or Administrative Procedure Act for the reasons discussed above. It also stated that the Complaint and Maxhuni’s opposition did not explain a constitutional-violation theory. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment claim was granted.

The Complaint’s claim for relief under the Equal Access to Justice Act was dismissed in light of the dismissal of the other claims.

In its conclusion, the court denied the application for a writ of mandamus and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice to renewal if Maxhuni’s asylum application remained pending without a decision for an unreasonable period. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.