Naramo v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Background

Belayneh Naramo sought an order requiring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kristi Noem, Jennifer B. Higgins, and Emilia Bardini to adjudicate Naramo’s asylum application within a reasonable time. The complaint asserted claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The opinion describes the agency’s delay as nearly four years.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Naramo did not file an opposition or response by the deadline. The court nevertheless independently evaluated whether the defendants showed that no genuine dispute of material fact existed and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Mandamus claim

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the claimant’s right is clear and certain, the official’s duty is nondiscretionary and plainly prescribed, and no other adequate remedy exists. Naramo relied on the Immigration and Nationality Act’s asylum-processing time provisions, including 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5).

The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(7) expressly prevents that subsection from creating an enforceable substantive or procedural right against the United States, its agencies, officers, or another person. Because the statute does not provide a private right of action, the court held that mandamus relief was unavailable and granted summary judgment for the defendants on that claim.

Administrative Procedure Act claim

The defendants argued that the APA did not independently support subject-matter jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the APA provides limited judicial review to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed. The court held that Naramo could not use the APA to enforce the specific statutory asylum-processing deadlines, but could seek an order requiring adjudication within a reasonable period. The court therefore found jurisdiction over the APA claim.

To decide whether the delay was unreasonable, the court applied the six factors from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, commonly called the TRAC factors. The court found that:

- The most important factor—the agency’s rule of reason—favored the defendants because USCIS uses a two-track system that combines a last-in-first-out process with a backlog-reduction effort. - The factor concerning Congress’s timetable was neutral or, at most, slightly favored Naramo. Congress specified that asylum interviews generally should be scheduled within 45 days, absent exceptional circumstances, but the court considered the asserted backlog to be an exceptional circumstance. - The factors concerning human health and welfare and the interests harmed by delay favored the defendants. The court recognized the hardships Naramo described, including effects on permanent-residency and citizenship prospects, career opportunities, financial aid, travel, family petitions, and fear of returning to Naramo’s home country. But it found Naramo’s situation similar to that of other asylum applicants facing the same backlog. - The factor concerning the effect of expedited action on higher-priority agency activities favored the defendants. Ordering faster action for Naramo would move Naramo ahead of other applicants without producing a net gain. - The factor concerning improper conduct by the agency was not relevant because there was no evidence or allegation of impropriety.

The court concluded that four TRAC factors favored the defendants and two were neutral. It held that judicial intervention would not be an effective response to the asylum backlog.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims and vacated the hearing previously set for August 22, 2025.