Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Writ of Mandamus
Posted Sep 05, 2008
©MurthyDotCom
In Aityahia v. Chertoff, et. al., the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the government's motion to dismiss a mandamus action filed due to a seven-year delay in an Adjustment of Status application (I-485). The government’s only proffered reason for the delay in adjudicating the pending adjustment application was based on general Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name-check backlogs and increased security clearance procedures implemented after September 11, 2001. The Court found that they had jurisdiction to decide the case and that I-485 applications must be processed within reasonable timeframes.
©MurthyDotCom
Background : Asylum-Based Adjustment of Status
©MurthyDotCom
In Aityahia, the Plaintiff was granted asylum in 1999 and applied for permanent residency on April 23, 2001. After two background checks and an interview in August 2007, the Plaintiff’s I-485 was still pending without explanation beyond normal procedural delays.
©MurthyDotCom
While not mentioned in the case, it should be noted that, at the time of the applicant's I-485 filing, there was a limit on the number of asylum-based adjustment of status cases that could be approved annually. This limit was set at 10,000. There were additional problems, as discussed in our March 15, 2002 article, Government Sued over Mishandling of Asylee Adjustment Cases, since the Legacy INS was not even processing the allotted 10,000 cases each year. Thus, persons filing for adjustment of status as asylees normally would expect long processing waiting times. This cap of 10,000 was removed by the Real ID Act of 2005. Details can be found in our May 13, 2005 article, Asylum Provisions Under H.R. 1268 REAL ID Bill, also available on MurthyDotCom. Thus, these limits and the related delays would explain, in part, the reason this particular case was pending for such an extended period.
©MurthyDotCom
USCIS's Motion to Dismiss Denied
©MurthyDotCom
In the July 30, 2008 decision, the court denied the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The court found that the district court had jurisdiction to decide the case.
©MurthyDotCom
The USCIS often tries to assert that the district courts do not have jurisdiction in mandamus cases. In this instance the USCIS argued that, since adjustment of status cases are discretionary, mandamus actions cannot be used to compel or control a duty which is discretionary. This type of argument has been successful in certain jurisdictions. However, it was not successful in this instance. The court found that, even though the law does not provide for a specific timeframe for adjudication of I-485 cases, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the foreign national plaintiff had the right to have his I-485 acted upon within a reasonable time.
©MurthyDotCom
Conclusion : Mandamus Lawsuits Often Last Option for Unreasonable Delays
©MurthyDotCom
As discussed in our March 7, 2008 MurthyBulletin article, New Developments in Mandamus Lawsuits, an increasing number of adjustment of status applicants faced with unreasonable delays are seeking relief by filing writ of mandamus lawsuits. Readers can find more on writs of mandamus in our January 11, 2008 article, Murthy Law Firm Successful in Mandamus Lawsuits, available on MurthyDotCom.
©MurthyDotCom
Since 2005, mandamus lawsuits of this type have increased exponentially to cope with unreasonable bureaucratic delays. Many federal courts have determined they have the discretion to determine the reasonableness of delay and to order the USCIS to take action within defined timeframes.