Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kuldeep Singh, a citizen of India, says he fled political persecution because of his affiliation with the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar, known as the Mann Party, and arrived in the United States in July 2022. He first applied for asylum in San Francisco Immigration Court in October 2022. That court dismissed the case without prejudice in June 2023, noting he had the opportunity to seek asylum before USCIS. He filed with USCIS in September 2023, and the application was still pending when the court ruled.
Singh asked USCIS for an interview date in June 2024, April 2025, and June 2025, and each request was denied. He sued under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), asking the court to compel the agency to schedule his interview or otherwise adjudicate the application. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that mandamus was unavailable, that the court lacked APA jurisdiction, and that the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law. Singh filed a cross-motion. The court resolved both motions without oral argument.
The Court’s Holding
The court analyzed only the APA claim, observing that mandamus and APA relief are essentially the same where an adequate APA remedy exists and that mandamus is not available to compel the scheduling of an interview. It rejected the jurisdictional objection, explaining that whether USCIS has a clear duty goes to the elements of the claim rather than to subject matter jurisdiction. It then applied the six TRAC factors to a delay running from September 2023 to the present.
Most factors favored the government. The first, treated as the most important, favored the government because USCIS's two-track, last-in-first-out system is a sufficient rule of reason and delays of four years or less are not unreasonable. Singh's reliance on Policy Memorandum 602-0192 failed because he conceded it did not apply to his application and interviews continued during the four-month pause on asylum decisions. The third and fifth factors slightly favored the government because Singh can live and work in the United States while waiting. His separation from his wife and child is prejudice common to asylum applicants, and he offered no evidence of family surveillance or of his associate's death. The fourth factor favored the government because moving him ahead would not reduce the backlog and would disadvantage other applicants. The sixth favored the government because Singh showed no impropriety, and he cited no authority that a lack of individualized explanation for denying expedite requests amounts to impropriety.
The second factor favored Singh. Section 1158(d)(5)(A) expects interviews within 45 days, though that timing is not mandatory given exceptional circumstances, and the government cited the backlog but offered no timetable for his case. Weighing everything, the court held the three-year delay not unreasonable, granted the government's motion, and denied Singh's. The ruling is limited to the application as it now stands and does not bar a future claim under different circumstances. Judgment was to issue by separate order.
Key Takeaways
- A three-year wait for an asylum decision was not unreasonable under the APA where USCIS uses a last-in-first-out prioritization system and delays of four years or less are treated as acceptable.
- The statutory 45-day interview expectation favored the applicant under the second TRAC factor but did not carry the day, because it is not mandatory and the government pointed to the backlog.
- Lawful presence and work authorization while an asylum claim is pending weigh against finding serious prejudice, even when family members remain abroad.
- Unsupported assertions about harm to relatives or associates in the home country do not substitute for evidence.
- Because the ruling is tied to Singh's application as it exists now, a materially changed situation could support a new delay claim.
Why It Matters
The order applies the TRAC framework in a familiar way and follows other Northern District decisions treating delays of up to four years in asylum cases as reasonable when the agency uses a prioritization system. Notably, the court gave the applicant a win on the congressional timetable factor, showing that the statutory 45-day expectation is relevant but not decisive.
This is a magistrate judge's district court summary judgment order that does not appear to be reported, so it binds only the parties and carries limited precedential weight; other judges may weigh the factors differently. Applicants with longer delays or stronger evidence of prejudice or impropriety may present a different record.