Immigration: USCIS prevails on unreasonable delay asylum claim

Where there is an unprecedented increase in the number of persons seeking asylum, the otherwise-applicable deadlines are no longer in effect. As such, the government prevailed on a woman’s claim that the government has unreasonably delayed acting on her application.

Background

This matter arises from Hana Gebremedhin’s mandamus action requesting the court to direct United States Citizen and Immigration Services, or USCIS, to rule on her asylum application. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff has moved to defer summary judgment.

Defer

To defer summary judgment, the non-movant must put the court on notice as to which specific facts have yet to be discovered; vague requests that discovery is needed are insufficient. Here, plaintiff asks the court to defer summary judgment to allow her to conduct discovery on the government’s alleged reliance on mandamus in asylum applications, the detrimental effects of USCIS not adjudicating plaintiff’s application and the last-in, first-out, or LIFO, and backlog reduction policies.

But plaintiff has not made specific requests; instead, plaintiff makes vague inquiries into the practices of users. For example, plaintiff requests the reasons considered by USCIS when creating the LIFO and backlog reduction policies but fails to identify what specific documents would aid in her opposition to summary judgment. These vague requests are insufficient to defer summary judgment.

Further, plaintiff inherently controls the evidence related to their own well-being; there is no reason to delay summary judgment for evidence she already possesses. Finally, plaintiff states that allowing discovery “will promote agency reform.” But it is not the court’s place to reform USCIS.

In addition, plaintiff has not shown how or why the requested information would be “sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact such that it would have defeated summary judgment”; which is needed to delay summary judgment. The government has provided declarations stating their asylum policies, and government declarations are accorded a “presumption of legitimacy.”

Discovery will not change those policies. Plaintiff simply stating that discovery is needed to check the accuracy of those affidavits does not override the presumption afforded to the government and does not satisfy Rule 56(d).

Merits

Plaintiff puts forth two arguments under the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, and the Mandamus Act asking the court to compel USCIS to adjudicate plaintiff’s application. First, that USCIS is unlawfully withholding agency action. Second, that that application is unreasonably delayed.

As an initial matter, plaintiff did not make an unlawfully withheld claim in their complaint. And even if plaintiff had made an unlawfully withheld claim in her complaint, Congress’s mandate that USCIS interview applicants in 45 days and adjudicate asylum cases in 180 days is only applicable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. But the rapid increase in asylum applications is an exceptional circumstance. Thus there is no mandatory deadline due to the rapid increase in asylum applications.

Turning to the unreasonable delay claim, the increase in the number of applications creates an exceptional circumstance, so there is no congressional timetable. Further, the LIFO and backlog reduction      systems constitute a rule of reason. Third, plaintiff is residing in the United States while her application is pending. While plaintiff is separated from her husband, this alone is insufficient to say the system has an increased risk to her health and welfare.

Fourth, expediting Plaintiff’s application will prejudice users and other applicants, and USCIS’s autonomy in administrating an overloaded asylum system will be interfered with. Fifth, plaintiff has alleged no exigent circumstances or specific danger to her that would require an expedited process.

Plaintiff’s motion to defer summary judgment denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Gebremedhin v. Gentry, Case No. 1:24-cv-1636, Apr. 17, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Hilton). VLW 025-3-172. 12 pp.