Zheng v. Mayorkas

Background

Xiaolian Zheng, a Chinese citizen, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on July 2, 2020. The application had not been adjudicated when he filed this lawsuit on May 31, 2023. Zheng sought an order requiring Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou, and Danielle E. Lehman to adjudicate the application. His single claim relied on the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Zheng had received employment authorization in 2021. He applied to extend it before it expired, and the court noted that the authorization was automatically extended for up to 540 days and that Zheng could renew it in two-year increments while his asylum application remained pending. He had also asked to be placed on the short-notice list and was placed on that list in April 2021.

Jurisdiction and Mandamus

The defendants argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument to the extent Zheng claimed that the agency had unreasonably delayed action under the APA. Although the asylum statute requires an initial hearing to begin within 45 days absent exceptional circumstances, the court explained that applicants do not have a private right of action to enforce that timing requirement. That limitation did not prevent APA review of alleged unreasonable agency inaction.

The court separately concluded that Zheng could not obtain mandamus relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear and certain claim, a plainly prescribed nondiscretionary duty, and no other adequate remedy. The court found that the statutory 45-day timing provision could not support mandamus relief because it was not an enforceable right of the applicant.

Administrative Procedure Act Analysis

The court evaluated the alleged delay under the six factors commonly used to decide whether agency action is unreasonably delayed. Those factors consider the agency’s reason for the delay, any congressional timetable, effects on health and welfare, competing agency priorities, prejudice from the delay, and possible agency impropriety.

The first factor favored the defendants because the court found that the agency’s Last-In-First-Out scheduling system was a reasonable response to the asylum backlog and to filings made primarily to obtain work authorization. The second factor was neutral: Congress had indicated that interviews should generally be scheduled within 45 days, but the court concluded that the delay was not automatically unreasonable under the circumstances.

The factors concerning health, welfare, and prejudice favored the defendants. The court stated that Zheng had not identified a specific hardship beyond uncertainty about remaining in the United States, and that he could live and work in the United States while his application was pending. The factor concerning competing priorities also favored the defendants because moving Zheng’s application forward would place him ahead of other applicants. The impropriety factor was neutral because Zheng identified no misconduct by the defendants and the court found none.

Disposition

The court concluded that most of the delay factors favored the defendants and weighed against relief under the APA. Judge Westmore therefore denied Zheng’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ordered judgment in favor of the defendants and directed the Clerk to close the case.