Shakova v. Cioppa

Background

Olga Shakova, identified in the opinion as a native and citizen of Russia, entered the United States on June 28, 2021, and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on December 7, 2021. The application remained pending with the Newark Asylum Office. Shakova alleged that the agency had not scheduled an interview or issued a decision and that her inquiries had produced inadequate responses.

She sued Thomas A. Cioppa under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts to require an agency to act within a reasonable time, and under the Mandamus Act, which allows courts to compel an official or agency to perform a clearly required duty when no adequate alternative remedy exists. She sought an order finding the delay unlawful and unreasonable and requiring prompt adjudication or an interview within 30 days. She also sought attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The court applied the six factors from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, commonly called the TRAC factors, to assess whether Shakova plausibly alleged unreasonable agency delay. The court noted that courts in the district generally have found delays of four years or less in asylum processing not to be unreasonable, although the court did not establish an absolute deadline.

The court found that USCIS’s last-in-first-out scheduling system provided a rational explanation for the delay. Although Congress had identified 45-day and 180-day time periods for asylum processing, the statute expressly states that those provisions do not create an enforceable substantive or procedural right. The court also found that Shakova alleged only harms generally associated with pending asylum applications, such as restrictions on travel, work, family petitions, and eligibility for naturalization, rather than personal facts showing a particular effect on her health or welfare. The court treated the effect of expediting her application on agency priorities as neutral at the motion-to-dismiss stage and noted that she alleged no agency impropriety.

The court concluded that Shakova’s sparse complaint did not plausibly challenge the rationality of USCIS’s process or show that the delay had harmed her personally beyond the ordinary effects of pending asylum applications. The dismissal of this claim was without prejudice, and the court stated that the claim could become stronger as the delay continued or if Shakova could allege additional facts.

Mandamus Claim

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a private right of action under the asylum statute deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over the mandamus claim. But the court held that the statutory disclaimer undermined Shakova’s ability to show a clear right to the requested relief. The court also held that mandamus was unavailable because the Administrative Procedure Act supplied an alternative remedy.

The court therefore dismissed Shakova’s mandamus claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim without prejudice to amend. If no amendment was filed by June 27, 2025, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.