150 F. Supp. 3d 202
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiffs (L.M. and others), noncitizen asylum applicants with pending USCIS applications, sued DHS and USCIS officers alleging unlawful delays and discriminatory procedures (notably CARRP) that prolong interviews and adjudications beyond statutory timeframes.
- Statutory framework: INA requires initial interview within 45 days and adjudication within 180 days (8 U.S.C. §1158(d)(5)(A)(ii),(iii)) but contains §1158(d)(7) disclaiming any private, enforceable right to those timeframes.
- Plaintiffs seek mandamus, APA relief for unreasonable delay, APA notice-and-comment relief as to CARRP, and constitutional due process and equal protection remedies.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of enforceable statutory right, discretionary agency allocation of resources, and that CARRP is procedural (or otherwise exempt) from notice-and-comment.
- The court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim except it held the APA notice-and-comment challenge to CARRP in abeyance and ordered the parties to state whether they will proceed solely on that claim and propose briefing on that discrete issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus to compel adherence to INA timeframes | §1158 time limits are mandatory; plaintiffs have a clear, non-discretionary right to timely interviews/adjudications | §1158(d)(7) bars any private enforceable right; mandamus unavailable | Dismissed — §1158(d)(7) precludes mandamus; no clear enforceable right |
| APA §706 unreasonable-delay relief | Agency unreasonably delayed adjudications given multi-year backlogs and harms; court can compel agency action | Resource allocation and prioritization (e.g., UACs) are discretionary; judicial micromanagement improper | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead unreasonable delay as a matter of law given resource constraints and TRAC considerations |
| APA §553 notice-and-comment re: CARRP | CARRP is a substantive rule creating new standards/eligibility limits and required notice-and-comment | CARRP is an internal procedure/policy exempt from notice-and-comment | Not decided on merits — claim survives dismissal; court orders supplemental briefing on whether CARRP is substantive |
| Constitutional due process and equal protection claims | Long, arbitrary delays and prioritization (and CARRP's disparate impact) deny meaningful process and equal treatment | INA and §1158(d)(7) foreclose creation of procedural rights; classifications are rationally related to legitimate priorities | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to allege cognizable deprivation or negate conceivable rational bases for agency classifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (courts may consider evidence outside pleadings on Rule 12(b)(1))
- Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Alabama Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 896 F.2d 674 (2d Cir. 1990) (consider jurisdictional challenges first)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead factual content plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Anderson v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1989) (mandamus elements: clear right, plainly defined duty, no alternative remedy)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (APA §706 can compel only action that is legally required)
- Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for assessing unreasonable delay)
- St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Brock, 769 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1985) (statutory time period not mandatory absent explicit consequence for noncompliance)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (courts ordinarily will not impose sanctions where statute specifies timing but no consequences)
- Reddy v. CFTC, 191 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1999) (consider source and cause of delay in APA unreasonable-delay claims)
- Time Warner Cable Inc. v. FCC, 729 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2013) (APA notice-and-comment applies only to substantive rules)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) (distinguishing interpretive rules from substantive rules under APA)