Zheng v. Garland

Background

Yongfu Zheng, a Chinese citizen residing in the United States, filed an asylum application on September 11, 2020, alleging that he feared persecution if returned to China. He provided his biometrics on November 18, 2020. When he filed this lawsuit on July 2, 2023, USCIS had not decided the application.

Zheng sued Merrick B. Garland and other federal officials under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He sought an order requiring the Government to decide his application and a declaration that the delay was unreasonable. The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Zheng did not oppose the motion after the court warned that it would treat the motion as unopposed if he did not respond.

Mandamus Claim

The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that can require a federal officer or agency to perform a clearly defined duty owed to the plaintiff. A plaintiff must show a clear right to the requested relief, a plainly defined and mandatory government duty, and no other adequate remedy.

The court found that Zheng’s complaint was ambiguous about whether he sought an immediate decision or a decision within the timetable in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5). Under either interpretation, the court found the claim deficient. Zheng identified no legal basis giving him a right to immediate adjudication. The statutory 180-day timeframe also did not provide a basis for relief because § 1158(d)(7) states that the asylum-processing provisions do not create a legally enforceable substantive or procedural right or benefit. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the mandamus claim and dismissed it.

APA Claim

The APA requires agencies to complete matters within a reasonable time and allows courts to compel agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. Courts assess unreasonable-delay claims using six factors known as the TRAC factors, including the agency’s reason for the delay, any congressional timetable, effects on health and welfare, competing agency priorities, and the interests harmed by the delay.

The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege an unreasonable delay. It found that USCIS’s “last-in first-out” scheduling policy was a reasonable method for handling asylum applications. The court gave little weight to Congress’s asylum-processing timetable because the statute made it nonmandatory and disclaimed an enforceable right. The court also found that Zheng had not alleged an impact on his health or welfare, and that ordering faster action could move other applicants behind him. On balance, the TRAC factors favored the Government.

Declaratory Relief and Disposition

The court held that Zheng could not obtain declaratory relief because such relief required a viable underlying claim, and his APA claim failed. The court granted the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, dismissed the action, directed the Clerk to close the case, and terminated the motion. Judge Sarah L. Cave signed the Opinion & Order on August 15, 2024.