Konde v. Raufer
1:23-cv-04265
S.D.N.Y.May 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Penda Rachida Konde, a native of Burkina Faso, filed her asylum application with USCIS on August 26, 2020, and has yet to be scheduled for an interview.
- Plaintiff’s case was transferred from the New York Asylum Office to the Newark Asylum Office in January 2022.
- She received employment authorization while her application was pending.
- After nearly three years without an interview, Konde filed suit seeking to compel an interview, asserting claims under the Mandamus Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
- Defendant Susan Raufer, Director of the Newark Asylum Office, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The USCIS adjudicates asylum cases using a "last-in-first-out" (LIFO) policy to address backlogs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA claim for unreasonable delay | Delay in scheduling interview is unreasonable | Passage of time alone does not make delay unreasonable given LIFO policy | Dismissed - delay not unreasonable |
| Mandamus relief to compel interview | Defendant has clear duty to schedule interview | USCIS duty is discretionary; alternative remedy available under APA | Dismissed - no jurisdiction for mandamus |
| Declaratory Judgment Act jurisdiction | Seeks declaration that delay is unlawful | No independent jurisdiction under Declaratory Judgment Act | Dismissed - no jurisdiction |
| Statutory right to timely adjudication | INA and regulations create enforceable right | Statute expressly disclaims any enforceable individual right to deadlines | Dismissed - no enforceable right under INA |
Key Cases Cited
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (Rule 12(b)(1) standard for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (factual allegations must raise a right to relief above speculative level)
- Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105 (1988) (mandamus proper only to compel a clear, nondiscretionary duty)