Kullab v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Yasmin Kullab filed an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on November 3, 2020. USCIS had not scheduled her asylum interview or adjudicated her application when she filed this case. She sued USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security, and three individuals in their official capacities under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking an order requiring the government to adjudicate her application without further delay.

The opinion describes USCIS’s asylum-scheduling systems and its backlog. USCIS generally uses a “Last-In, First-Out” system for some interviews and also uses a chronological track that begins with older pending applications. The agency attributed delays to the backlog, other urgent asylum-related work, required processing of certain applications, limited funding, administrative work, and litigation. While her application remained pending, Kullab received employment authorization, renewed it, and had authorization valid through October 15, 2029.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants moved for summary judgment on both claims. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review an alleged failure to meet the asylum statute’s interview and adjudication timelines. They also argued that, even if the court had jurisdiction, USCIS had not unreasonably delayed Kullab’s application.

Mandamus Act Claim

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Mandamus Act claim. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to require a federal official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision barring private rights of action prevents applicants from bringing a Mandamus Act claim to enforce the statutory asylum-processing timelines.

Jurisdiction Under the APA

The court rejected the defendants’ jurisdictional argument concerning the APA claim. The court held that adjudicating an asylum application is a distinct agency action that USCIS is required to take. It also held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s bar on private rights of action does not eliminate judicial review of Kullab’s APA claim. The court therefore proceeded to consider whether the delay was unreasonable.

APA Claim and Unreasonable Delay

The court applied the six factors from Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission, commonly called the TRAC factors, to assess whether the agency’s delay was unreasonable. The factors consider whether the agency follows a reasonable decision-making rule, congressional timing expectations, effects on health and welfare, competing agency priorities, harms caused by the delay, and any impropriety.

The court found that the factors either favored the defendants or were neutral. USCIS’s scheduling systems supplied a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the court noted that Kullab had waited less than five years. Although Congress set general interview and adjudication timelines, those timelines allow for exceptional circumstances, and the court found that USCIS had shown several circumstances contributing to the backlog. The court found that Kullab identified general harms shared by asylum applicants rather than a specific health or welfare injury, and that she could remain and work in the United States while her application was pending. The court also found that moving her application to the front of the line would interfere with competing USCIS priorities. The impropriety factor was neutral.

Disposition

The court recognized that the delay was unquestionably long and stated that continued delay might eventually become unreasonable. But it concluded that the delay was not unreasonable yet. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED.