Ujka v. Mayorkas

Background

Ledisia Ujka filed an asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on May 24, 2022. USCIS acknowledged receiving it on August 12, 2022, but the application remained pending. Ujka alleged that Defendants had failed to decide the application within a reasonable time. She described concerns about her safety, employment, housing, education, emotional well-being, and the possible effects of delay on her asylum claim.

Ujka asserted claims under the Mandamus Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Equal Access to Justice Act. She sought an order requiring Defendants to adjudicate her application, declarations that the delay was unlawful, and attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Mandamus Claim

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Ujka’s mandamus claim. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear right to the requested relief and a plainly defined duty that the government must perform. Although Defendants acknowledged a duty to adjudicate the application, the court held that Ujka had no legally enforceable right to have it decided within the timelines in the asylum statute. That statute expressly states that its timing provisions do not create a legally enforceable right or benefit against the government or its officers.

The court also considered the mandamus claim as based on the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that agencies act within a reasonable time. It concluded that mandamus would still be unavailable because the Administrative Procedure Act could provide an alternative remedy, and because Ujka had not shown an actionable unreasonable delay.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to compel agency action that has been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The court applied the factors commonly used to assess unreasonable delay, including whether the agency followed a reasonable process, the significance of any statutory timetable, the effects of delay on health and welfare, the effect of court-ordered priority on competing agency work, the interests harmed by delay, and whether agency misconduct was alleged.

The court found that USCIS’s “Last in First Out” scheduling system was a reasonable method for managing asylum applications. It gave little weight to the statutory processing timelines because the statute makes them unenforceable. Although the court recognized Ujka’s concerns about uncertainty, employment, safety, and emotional distress, it found that she could legally live and work in the United States while her application remained pending and had not adequately connected the delay to her safety concerns. The court also concluded that ordering USCIS to prioritize her application would move other applicants back in line. Finally, the court found that Ujka’s allegations about possible government misconduct were too conclusory.

The court therefore concluded that Ujka had not stated an Administrative Procedure Act claim based on unreasonable delay. It dismissed that claim without prejudice to renewal if the application remained pending for a period that became unreasonable.

Declaratory Judgment, Fees, and Discovery

The court held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently give federal courts jurisdiction. Because Ujka’s other claims did not survive, the court found no independent jurisdictional basis for her declaratory-judgment claim and dismissed it without prejudice to renewal as stated in the court’s conclusion.

The court also dismissed Ujka’s Equal Access to Justice Act claim because her other claims were dismissed. It denied her request for discovery into USCIS’s procedures, explaining that unreasonable-delay claims generally can be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Ujka’s mandamus claim was dismissed with prejudice. Her Administrative Procedure Act and declaratory-judgment claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal if her asylum application remained pending long enough for the delay to become unreasonable. The Equal Access to Justice Act claim was dismissed, and the court directed the Clerk to close the case.