Kyaw v. Jaddou

Background

Kyaw sought an order requiring the government to adjudicate his asylum application. He asserted claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The government moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule when the evidence shows there is no material dispute requiring a trial.

The opinion states that USCIS had not adjudicated Kyaw’s application for 3.5 years. Kyaw had applied for expedited review in June 2023, but USCIS denied that request in August 2023. The opinion also states that Kyaw was legally authorized to live and work in the United States through 2029 and could seek renewal of his work authorization at that time.

Mandamus claim

The court held that mandamus relief was unavailable. Mandamus is an extraordinary court remedy that requires, among other things, a clear and certain claim and a plainly prescribed, nondiscretionary duty. Kyaw relied on time limits in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A), but § 1158(d)(7) provides that the subsection does not create a substantive or procedural right or benefit enforceable against the United States or its agencies or officers. The court therefore concluded that the statutory time limits could not support mandamus relief.

Administrative Procedure Act claim

The court explained that, although § 1158(d)(7) does not create a private right of action under the asylum statute, the APA permits limited judicial review when agency action is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. Thus, Kyaw could seek an order requiring USCIS to decide his application within a reasonable time, but he could not use the APA to enforce the specific deadlines in § 1158(d)(5)(A).

The court applied the six factors from Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, commonly called the TRAC factors, to determine whether the delay was unreasonable:

- The first and most important factor—whether the agency follows a reasonable system for deciding which matters to handle first—favored the government. USCIS uses a two-track system: a last-in-first-out system intended in part to discourage frivolous asylum filings, and a first-in-first-out system focused on older applications and the backlog. - The second factor—whether Congress provided a timetable or other indication of the expected speed—favored Kyaw because the asylum statute specifies time limits that the government had not followed, and the government had not provided another timetable for deciding his application. - The third and fifth factors, concerning human health and welfare and the interests harmed by delay, slightly favored the government. The court recognized that deciding Kyaw’s asylum application could be important to his welfare, but found that he had provided no evidence showing how the delay affected his physical, emotional, or financial well-being. - The fourth factor—whether requiring faster action would interfere with higher-priority agency activities—favored the government. The court concluded that ordering immediate action would interfere with USCIS’s system for prioritizing asylum applications and would effectively move other applicants farther back in line. - The sixth factor—whether there was evidence of improper conduct behind the delay—was not relevant because the record contained no evidence of impropriety.

After weighing the factors, the court held that the government’s 3.5-year delay was not unreasonable under the APA.

Discovery request and disposition

Kyaw also asked the court to defer or deny summary judgment because he had not been able to conduct adequate discovery. The court denied that request. It stated that Kyaw had generally challenged the specificity of the government’s declarations but had not identified a material factual dispute, specified what additional evidence he could not obtain, or submitted evidence of his own.

Judge Chhabria granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. The order also denied Kyaw’s request to defer or deny the motion based on inadequate discovery.