Liu v. Cissna

Background

Ten plaintiffs sued federal immigration officials under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal mandamus statute, and related immigration laws. They sought an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to schedule asylum interviews and decide their asylum applications. The applications, filed between August and November 2015, were based on alleged forced sterilization, forced abortion, and religious persecution in China.

The plaintiffs alleged that USCIS’s January 2018 “last in, first out” scheduling policy created an indefinite wait for older applications. Under that policy, USCIS first considered cases needing rescheduled interviews, then applications pending 21 days or less, and then other pending applications beginning with newer filings. The plaintiffs alleged that they were allowed to remain in the United States and had received employment authorization, but had not received the immigration status and benefits they associated with approved asylum.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

APA claims

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) completely barred a challenge to delays in asylum processing. The plaintiffs relied on the APA’s requirement that agencies act “within a reasonable time” and its provision allowing courts to compel agency action that is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, rather than relying solely on the INA’s 45-day interview and 180-day adjudication timeframes. The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the APA claims.

The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately shown unreasonable delay. It considered the six factors commonly used to evaluate agency delay, including whether the agency followed a rational timing system, the effect of delay on the plaintiffs, and the effect of giving the plaintiffs priority over other applicants.

The court found that USCIS had offered reasons for using the “last in, first out” policy, including reducing incentives for frivolous or fraudulent applications filed to obtain work authorization and addressing the agency’s broader backlog. The court determined that the policy was a reasonable method for managing a systemic problem. It also concluded that the INA’s 45-day and 180-day schedule could not be treated as binding because the INA states that the schedule does not create a legally enforceable right or benefit.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged a risk to human health or welfare resulting from the delay. It also reasoned that ordering USCIS to process the plaintiffs’ applications ahead of others would move them to the front of the line and could harm other applicants and undermine the agency’s stated objectives. The court concluded that the approximately three-year period before the complaint was filed, although significant, did not amount to an unreasonable delay on the facts alleged.

Mandamus claims

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to require a government official to perform a clearly defined, nondiscretionary duty when the plaintiff has a clear right to relief and no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court held that mandamus relief was unavailable to the plaintiffs for two reasons.

First, the plaintiffs had not shown that the delay violated the APA’s reasonable-time requirement. Second, the APA provided an alternative remedy, so mandamus could not be used to duplicate the APA claims. As to the INA’s specific 45-day and 180-day timeframes, the court held that the INA’s non-enforceability provision meant the plaintiffs had no legally enforceable right to have their applications decided within those periods. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the mandamus claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Classification note

This is classified as a procedural order because the court disposed of the case through a motion under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), even though it analyzed whether the alleged delay was unreasonable.