Chang v. Jaddou

Background

Qing Chang, representing himself, sued the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). He sought an order requiring USCIS to decide his asylum application, which USCIS received on July 7, 2021. Chang alleged that the delay caused significant distress, uncertainty, financial hardship, homelessness, and accumulated debt. He brought claims under the Mandamus Act, which can require a federal official to perform a clearly required duty, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which permits review of unreasonably delayed agency action.

Chang also sought a declaration that the delay was unlawful, recognition of the harms he attributed to the delay, and monthly status reports until USCIS made a final decision. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended granting the motion and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Chang objected to that recommendation.

Mandamus claim

The court overruled Chang’s objections and dismissed his mandamus claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that mandamus requires, among other things, that the plaintiff have no other adequate remedy. Because Chang could seek review under the APA, the court held that mandamus was unavailable. The court also noted that the statutory deadlines for asylum interviews and decisions did not create a privately enforceable right under the relevant immigration statute.

Administrative Procedure Act claim

The court considered whether USCIS had unreasonably delayed deciding Chang’s asylum application. It applied the six factors commonly used to evaluate agency delay, including whether the agency followed a reasonable system, the effect of delay on the applicant, competing agency priorities, and the interests harmed by the delay.

The court held that USCIS’s system—which generally prioritizes newer asylum applications while using a second track to process some older applications—was governed by a reasonable rule. It also concluded that delays of similar or longer lengths had been found reasonable in other cases. The court found that Chang’s asserted personal and financial harms did not outweigh the other factors, particularly because his work authorization had not expired and had been renewed. The court therefore adopted the recommendation to dismiss the APA claim.

Declaratory relief and amendment

The court dismissed Chang’s requests for declaratory relief without prejudice. It explained that the Declaratory Judgment Act provides a possible remedy but does not create an independent claim or basis for federal jurisdiction. Because Chang had not stated another claim supporting relief, a request for a declaration could not stand alone.

The court denied Chang leave to amend. Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to amend, the court concluded that an amendment could not overcome the identified barriers: additional allegations would not change the analysis of the delay under the APA, additional legal authority would not create an independent declaratory claim, and additional allegations about Chang’s harms would not entitle him to relief.

Disposition

Judge Cronan adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied leave to amend. The court directed the clerk to update the docket to identify Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security and Kika Scott as the senior official performing the duties of the USCIS director, and to close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.