33 F.4th 1131
9th Cir.2022Background
- EOIR’s Attorney Discipline Program receives and investigates complaints against practitioners who appear before immigration courts and the BIA; investigations are processed in receipt order but may be prioritized and depend on available resources.
- Prymas Nazreth Vaz filed a complaint in May 2018 alleging extensive misconduct by his former counsel; EOIR decided to investigate but gave the complaint no priority and did not provide a timeline or status updates.
- About two years later Vaz sued EOIR seeking to compel completion of the investigation and to force notification of results, invoking the Mandamus Act and the APA.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under both statutes and alternatively denied relief, treating extrinsic evidence as part of the record; Vaz appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred treating APA requirements as jurisdictional, found subject-matter jurisdiction under §1331, concluded EOIR has a mandatory duty to investigate under 8 C.F.R. §1003.104(b) but no mandatory duty to notify complainants of investigation results, and affirmed denial of relief because the delay was not unreasonable under the TRAC factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over APA claim | Vaz: APA claim arises under federal law so federal-question jurisdiction exists | EOIR/district court: plaintiff failed to show entitlement under APA; court lacked jurisdiction | Court: jurisdiction exists under §1331; merits belong to merits, not jurisdictional analysis |
| Does §1003.104(b) create a mandatory duty to investigate? | Vaz: regulation says EOIR "will" initiate a preliminary inquiry—mandatory duty to investigate | EOIR: regulation leaves broad discretion over investigations and outcomes, so no mandatory duty to investigate | Court: "will" imposes a clear, mandatory duty to initiate investigation (but not a time frame) |
| Does the regulation require reporting investigation results to complainants? | Vaz: regulation’s final sentence requires written notice of determinations to complainant and practitioner | EOIR: notification language applies only to certain determinations (e.g., closing for noncooperation) | Court: no mandatory duty to report investigation results; sentence applies to closures for complainant noncompliance |
| Was EOIR’s delay unreasonable under the APA (TRAC factors)? | Vaz: multi-year delay is unreasonable and relief should be compelled | EOIR: heavy backlog, limited resources, and prioritization make delay reasonable | Court: on record, relevant TRAC factors (esp. resource-allocation and prejudice) weigh against relief; delay not unreasonable; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 1997) (mandamus and APA relief are closely related; court may analyze APA claim alone)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (§706(1) permits compel only discrete agency actions that are mandatory)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (announcing the six TRAC factors to assess unreasonable delay)
- Plaskett v. Wormuth, 18 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2021) (clarifies that plaintiff must show agency has a clear, mandatory duty for §706(1) relief)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 956 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2020) (TRAC factor analysis and guidance on what counts as a reasonable time)