Aydemir v. Garland

Background

Seyhmus Aydemir filed an application to adjust his status to permanent resident—commonly called a green-card application—with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in April 2020. He had been granted asylum in 2019. After the application remained pending for about 28 months, Aydemir sued Merrick Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Christopher Wray, seeking an order requiring USCIS to complete the application. He alleged that the delay was unreasonable, that USCIS had denied his request to expedite the application, and that the delay made it difficult for him to work in his medical field.

The respondents moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the petition did not state a legally sufficient claim.

Administrative Procedure Act Claim

The court first held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over Aydemir’s claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Although the Immigration and Nationality Act limits judicial review of certain immigration decisions, the court distinguished between ordering USCIS to reach a decision and ordering it to reach a particular decision. The court concluded that it could require the agency to perform a nondiscretionary duty to decide the application, even though it could not order a particular outcome.

The court then considered whether Aydemir plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay under the APA. The court applied the six factors commonly used to assess agency delay, including the length and reason for the delay, any statutory timetable, the interests harmed by the delay, the effect of expedited processing on agency priorities, and any agency misconduct.

The court found that the 28-month delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law. USCIS reported that it completed 80 percent of comparable applications within 40.5 months, and the court noted that other courts generally treated immigration delays of less than four years as reasonable on their face. USCIS also generally processed applications in the order received. The court found Aydemir’s suggestion that an unusual security-check problem caused the delay to be speculative and unsupported by specific facts.

A statutory provision expressing Congress’s view that immigration-benefit applications should generally be completed within 180 days informed the analysis but did not create a binding deadline. The court also found that Aydemir’s employment-related harm and interest in returning to medical work weighed only slightly in his favor. In contrast, ordering USCIS to expedite his application could disrupt the agency’s first-in, first-out system and make other applicants wait longer. The court found no alleged agency misconduct contributing to the delay.

The court concluded that Aydemir’s APA claim was premature and must be dismissed because the delay was not yet unreasonable.

Mandamus Claim

Aydemir also sought relief under the Mandamus Act, which allows a court to order a federal officer or agency to perform a duty owed to a plaintiff. The court explained that mandamus generally requires a clear right to relief, a plainly defined duty, and no other adequate remedy.

The court dismissed the mandamus claim without reaching the first two requirements. It held that the APA provided an adequate alternative remedy for the alleged delay, even though Aydemir had not successfully stated an APA claim. The court also noted that a mandamus claim duplicating an APA claim should be dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the petition without prejudice, directed the clerk to close the motion, and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion stated that Aydemir could file another petition if he later alleged specific facts making a security-check delay plausible or if the USCIS delay became unreasonable.