Shakova v. Cioppa
1:24-cv-07763
S.D.N.Y.May 29, 2025Background
- Olga Sharkova, a Russian citizen, applied for asylum and withholding of removal in the U.S. in December 2021 and her application is still pending before USCIS without an interview or decision.
- Sharkova sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Mandamus Act, alleging USCIS’s delay in adjudicating her application is unreasonable and unlawful.
- Plaintiff requested the court to compel USCIS to act on her application within 30 days and sought attorney’s fees.
- Defendant (USCIS) moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiff failed to state a claim.
- The USCIS processes asylum applications using a last-in, first-out (LIFO) system and claims the delay is due to agency backlog and competing priorities.
- The court reviewed the complaint under the plausibility standard of Twombly/Iqbal, considering the six TRAC factors to assess reasonableness of agency delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable delay under the APA | Delay of nearly three years violates statutory expectations and is unreasonable | Delay due to agency backlog; LIFO method is reasonable and complies with established procedures | Delay within range found reasonable; no facts alleged showing special harm or agency defect; claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Existence of a clear right under the Mandamus Act | Plaintiff claims a clear right to timely adjudication of her asylum application | No clear statutory right; statute expressly denies private right of action for these deadlines | No clear right to relief; APA offers alternative remedy, precluding mandamus claim |
| Availability of alternate remedies | Mandamus appropriate as there is no adequate alternative remedy | The APA offers an adequate remedy for agency delay | The APA is an adequate alternative; mandamus unavailable |
| Judicial enforceability of statutory deadlines | Congressional benchmarks indicate expected timeliness | Deadlines are not judicially enforceable under the statute | Congressional deadlines not enforceable; no private right of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility is required to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints need sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119 (mandamus relief elements in 2d Circuit)
- Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (mandamus only available if no adequate alternative remedy and a clear duty exists)
- Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (mandamus requires that the right to the writ be clear and indisputable)