FACTS:

Our client came to us after enduring years of silence following his credible and well-documented asylum interview based on fear of persecution in his home country. Despite a compelling claim, supported by strong country conditions and detailed affidavits, no decision came from USCIS.

After more than a year had passed since the asylum interview, and with no meaningful response from USCIS—even after multiple inquiries—we advised our client to consider federal court intervention. We explained the risks and potential benefits of filing a Writ of Mandamus, and the client decided to move forward with litigation.

THE LAW:

Generally, USCIS has no legal obligation to issue a decision on asylum applications within a specific timeframe—even after an interview. Sadly, this has left many asylum seekers in legal limbo for years.

However, it is possible to seek relief in federal court through a lawsuit known as a Writ of Mandamus. This action asks a U.S. District Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate the case. While the government can oppose such requests (arguing, for instance, that the delay is “reasonable”), in many cases, the threat of litigation is enough to prompt action.

In the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), which is where many of our Mandamus cases are filed, the general rule of thumb is that a case should be pending at least 2 years before a federal judge is likely to compel USCIS to act. This standard is not written in law but has become a practical benchmark based on court trends in this jurisdiction.

Additionally, many asylum applicants whose court cases were dismissed under prosecutorial discretion have now refiled their I-589 applications with USCIS. It is important to remember that:

• USCIS will credit your original asylum filing date for purposes of the one-year filing deadline, and

• That same date will also be used to determine your eligibility for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) under the asylum-pending category.

• This is ALSO likely to be an argument which can be used in support of a Mandamus action.

Understanding these legal nuances is critical when deciding whether Mandamus is the right path.

THE RESULT:

In this case, our client’s long wait and significant hardship—including prolonged family separation and lack of immigration stability—made Mandamus appropriate. We carefully documented the timeline, the strong merits of the underlying asylum claim, and the detrimental effects of the delay.

Shortly after our lawsuit was filed, government attorneys moved quickly. Within 60 days, USCIS issued a final approval on the asylum application—granting the client protection in the United States.

Such a result is not always possible or typical, but this case is a reminder that Mandamus remains an effective legal strategy to combat unreasonable USCIS delays, even under the current administration.

DISCLAIMER: All Case Results published here depend on specific facts and legal issues unique to each case. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes in future matters.