Chang v. Jaddou

Background

Qing Chang, a self-represented plaintiff who the opinion says was residing in the United States and was a Chinese citizen, filed an asylum application on June 28, 2021. When he filed this lawsuit on August 30, 2024, the application had not been decided. Chang alleged that the delay and problems renewing his work authorization caused employment difficulties, debt, eviction, and homelessness. He sought orders requiring the government to schedule an interview and decide the application, as well as declaratory relief. He did not seek monetary damages.

Chang sued Alejandro Mayorkas, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Ur Mendoza Jaddou, then Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The opinion states that the docket should be updated to reflect later officeholders. Chang brought claims under the Mandamus Act, which can require a federal official to perform a clearly required duty, and the Administrative Procedure Act, which can permit a court to require agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

The Government’s Motion

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Chang had not stated a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a report and recommendation to District Judge John P. Cronan.

Mandamus Claim

The recommendation concluded that Chang had not shown a clear right to the requested mandamus relief. Section 1158(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides target timeframes for asylum interviews and decisions, but Section 1158(d)(7) says that the subsection creates no enforceable substantive or procedural right against the government. The recommendation therefore concluded that Chang could not use the Mandamus Act to enforce those timeframes.

The recommendation also explained that a claim based on an allegedly unreasonable delay arises under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than the Mandamus Act. In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act provided an alternative remedy, which weighed against mandamus jurisdiction. The recommendation stated that the motion should be granted as to the Mandamus Claim and that the claim should be dismissed without prejudice.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The recommendation applied six factors commonly used to assess whether an agency has unreasonably delayed action. It found that the government’s “last-in, first-out” system for scheduling asylum interviews was a reasonable method intended to discourage frivolous applications filed primarily to obtain work authorization. That factor favored the Government.

The statutory asylum-processing timetable did not strongly favor either side because Congress made the timetable nonbinding and stated that it did not create an enforceable right. The recommendation found that Chang’s emotional distress and uncertainty about his legal status were harms inherent in the asylum process. It also noted that his work authorization had not expired and had been renewed on May 2, 2024. The factors concerning harm from delay therefore did not favor Chang.

The factor concerning the effect of expedited review favored the Government because moving Chang’s application ahead of other applicants could push those applicants farther back without producing an overall gain. The final factor, concerning bad faith, was neutral because Chang had not alleged bad faith or other improper conduct. The recommendation concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The recommendation nevertheless stated that the Administrative Procedure Act claim should be denied without prejudice because the delay could become unreasonable if the Government deferred action for a greater period. In the report’s final conclusion, it recommended that the motion be granted and the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

Other Relief and Amendment

The recommendation rejected Chang’s request for a declaration that the delay was unreasonable and unlawful, explaining that declaratory relief requires an adequate underlying claim. Because the complaint did not state a viable Administrative Procedure Act claim, the recommendation concluded that Chang was not entitled to a declaration.

The recommendation also recommended denying Chang leave to amend at that time. It concluded that immediate amendment would be futile based on the deficiencies described in the report.

Recommended Disposition and Procedure

The report and recommendation recommended that the Government’s motion be granted, that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and that leave to amend be denied at that time. It directed the parties to file objections within 14 days after service. The text identifies Sarah L. Cave as the magistrate judge who signed the recommendation and John P. Cronan as the district judge to whom objections were directed. The opinion text does not state whether Judge Cronan later adopted the recommendation.