Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionmotionasylumwrit of mandamusmotion to dismiss
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionattorneymotionasylumwrit of mandamusmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
View Case »
Vicente D. DeDios v. Medical Dynamic Sys., Inc.
View Case »
Meraz-Valeta; U.S. v.
View Case »
Fujii, Matter of
View Case »
United States v. Salazar-Gonzalez
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gomez v. Nielsen

Facts

The plaintiff, a native of Venezuela, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the federal government to adjudicate his application for asylum and withholding of removal. He alleged that U.S. Customs and Immigration Services had unlawfully withheld records related to his Freedom of Information Act request. The plaintiff also sued high-level officials of the U.S. government and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Plaintiff is a native of Venezuela who is appearing pro se . He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the federal government to adjudicate his "Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal." Am. Pet. for a Writ of Mandamus and Compl. for Declaratory [**2] Judgment ("Am. Compl.") at 3 [Dkt. # 12]. Plaintiff further states that he is bringing "claims in relation with the claims of asylum," and he has invoked the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") , the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") , and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). Id. Plaintiff alleges also that U.S. Customs and Immigration Services ("USCIS") has unlawfully withheld records responsive to his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request submitted in February 2017.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the federal government to adjudicate his asylum application and whether the court had jurisdiction over his claims.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the federal government to adjudicate his asylum application and whether the court had jurisdiction over his claims.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles governing mandamus relief, which requires a clear and indisputable right to relief, a violation of a clear duty to act by the government, and the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.

"Mandamus is a 'drastic' remedy, 'to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.'" Fornaro v. James , 416 F.3d 63, 69, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 401 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S. Ct. 188, 66 L. Ed. 2d 193 (1980)). To show entitlement to mandamus, plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or official is violating a clear duty to act, and (3) that no adequate alternative remedy exists.

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiff's mandamus claim was moot because he had been scheduled for an asylum interview, which negated the need for the writ. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the claims against President Trump were not supported by plausible facts showing his personal involvement in the asylum proceedings.

The Court would lack jurisdiction over plaintiff's mandamus claim in any event because (1) plaintiff has an adequate remedy under the INA, see 8 U.S.C. 1158 , (2) "asylum is a form of discretionary relief" accorded to the Attorney General, Guevara Flores v. INS , 786 F.2d 1242, 1248 (5th Cir. 1986) , and (3) the Court may "award mandamus relief only to compel the performance of a 'clear nondiscretionary duty.'" Kwok Sze , 172 F. Supp. 3d at 118 (quoting Heckler v. Ringer , 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S. Ct. 2013, 80 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1984)).

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff's claims were moot and that he had not established jurisdiction for his claims against the federal government.

The court grants the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the equitable claims arising from the asylum application under Rule 12(b)(1).

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's claims were moot and that he had adequate remedies available under the law.

The court grants the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the equitable claims arising from the asylum application under Rule 12(b)(1).

You must be