Ahmadi v. Alfonso-Royals
2:25-cv-02211
| D. Ariz. | Jun 27, 2025Background:
- Zahra Ahmadi, an Afghan evacuee, filed an asylum application with USCIS on August 29, 2021, after entering the U.S. under Operation Allies Refuge.
- She alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed processing her application for 1,039 days, despite statutory mandates for timely adjudication.
- Ahmadi seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying court fees), which the court grants.
- Her lawsuit asserts claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for unreasonable agency delay and under the Mandamus Act to compel agency action.
- The statutory framework (Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act and relevant INA provisions) requires USCIS to process such asylum applications within specific timeframes (45 days for interview, 150 days for decision, barring exceptional circumstances).
- The court screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for legal sufficiency and jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an APA claim can proceed against USCIS for unreasonable delay in adjudicating asylum claims | Ahmadi argues USCIS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate her asylum claim within 150 days and the delay is unlawful | Likely contends delay is not actionable or is excusable under "exceptional circumstances" | APA claim may proceed; plaintiff plausibly alleged unreasonable delay of a required discrete action |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling action on her asylum application | Ahmadi claims the government’s duty to timely adjudicate is clear, mandatory, and ministerial | Likely argues no clear right exists, citing INA’s "no private right of action" provision | Mandamus claim dismissed; the INA bars such claims due to lack of a clear, certain right |
| Applicability of INA's "no private right of action" bar to APA and Mandamus claims | Argues this bar does not prevent judicial review under the APA | Relies on this statute to bar all relief | Court holds bar applies to Mandamus but not to APA claims |
| Whether in forma pauperis status properly applies in this non-prisoner case | Ahmadi demonstrated financial incapacity | Not disputed | Motion to proceed IFP granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (In forma pauperis complaints must be dismissed if they fail to state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Complaints require plausible factual allegations to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Factual plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) (Mandamus relief only if no other adequate remedy exists and duty is clear and certain)
- Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) (Mandamus standard—clear right, nondiscretionary duty, no other available remedy)