Kullab v. United States Department of Homeland Security
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-04179
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kullab v. Homeland Security, Judge Donato granted defendants summary judgment, ruling the asylum-processing delay was not yet unreasonable.
Sondos Kullab's asylum-processing claims were resolved in favor of the defendants, including the United States Department of Homeland Security and the other defendants named in the complaint. The judgment did not bar Kullab from bringing renewed claims as future circumstances warrant.
What happened
In Kullab v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Sondos Kullab said she applied for asylum in November 2020 and that the application remained unprocessed. She sued under the Administrative Procedure Act and a federal law allowing courts to order government officials to perform required duties.
The defendants asked for summary judgment, a decision based on the record when no important facts are disputed. They did not dispute when Kullab applied or that her application had not been processed. They also briefly argued that the court lacked authority to hear her Administrative Procedure Act claim.
Judge James Donato adopted in full a decision from a related case and granted summary judgment for the defendants. He ruled that the delay was not yet unreasonable, found that the court had authority to hear the Administrative Procedure Act claim, and entered judgment without prejudice to Kullab renewing her claims if future circumstances warrant.
The detailed version
- Kullab v. United States Department of Homeland Security · No. 3:24-cv-04179
- James Donato
- June 16, 2025
Background
Sondos Kullab alleged that she filed an asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in November 2020. She alleged that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security, their lead executive officers, and the director of the San Francisco Asylum Office had not processed the application. In May 2024, she was advised that the application remained under review.
Kullab attributed the delay to the defendants' policy of processing asylum applications on a last-in-first-out basis. She alleged that this policy would effectively prevent her application from being fully adjudicated. Her complaint asserted a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., and sought an order requiring the defendants to process the application under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Arguments and Undisputed Facts
The defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. Summary judgment is a ruling based on the record when there is no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result. The defendants did not dispute the date Kullab alleged she filed her application or that the application had not been processed. The court stated that there were no material facts in question or doubt.
The defendants also made a brief argument that the court lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear the Administrative Procedure Act claim.
Court's Analysis and Ruling
While the motion was pending, another judge in the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for the government in a related case, No. 24-cv-04140. The court independently reviewed that decision and the record in Kullab's case. It adopted the related decision in full and granted summary judgment for the defendants for the same reasons. This included the determination that jurisdiction existed over Kullab's Administrative Procedure Act claim in the circumstances presented.
The court concluded that the delay in deciding Kullab's asylum application had not yet been unreasonable. It therefore held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The court noted that this did not eliminate Kullab's ability to seek judicial relief in the future and stated that a consensus was emerging among district courts that longer delays might be inherently unreasonable. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants without prejudice to renewed claims by Kullab as future circumstances warrant.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.