What is a writ of mandamus?

Identify the grounds of filing a writ of

mandamus before a U.S. District Court for delay in immigration process

1.1 Introduction

The United States District Courts are authorized by the law of the U.S. to grant certain writs in aid
of the citizen. Among these, the writ of Mandamus is one of the essential writs that aids individuals
dealing with immigration law. This paper defines the "writ of mandamus" in the contexts of both
general law and U.S. immigration law. It also discusses the grounds of the writ of mandamus that
must be fulfilled for obtaining relief. And finally, this paper concludes by focusing on the
immigration benefits that come with the writ of mandamus.

1.2 What is the Writ of Mandamus?

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any
government, corporation, or public authority to do or not to do some act that the body is obligated
to do or not to do. According to the U.S. Attorney Office, "Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public
importance."1

In the context of U.S. immigration law, a writ of mandamus is an order given by a federal district
court to compel a federal agency, a government officer, a public body, a corporation, or an
individual to fulfill the duties or correct the abuse of discretion. In the United States, the duty to
make all kinds of decisions regarding immigration applications is performed by the USCIS.
However, the writ of mandamus is not used to force the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) to reach a positive result. Rather, a writ of mandamus is used to compel USCIS
to perform the actions that it is legally bound to take. As per the rules and regulations, concerned
departments of the U.S. immigration must decide whether to approve or reject an application. The
state cannot just ignore the application indefinitely. In the case of immigration, filing this kind of
suit can put an end to the agonizing time of waiting and uncertainty.

There are two kinds of mandamus writs:

Peremptory: It is a court order instructing USCIS to perform its legal obligations.

Alternative: It is a court order compelling USCIS to do anything, or if not, to provide justification

to the court as to why they shouldn't be required to do so.

1
United States v. McGarr (1972) 461 F.2d 1 (1972) (7th Cir.)
La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. [1957] 352 U.S. 249 [1957]
1.3 How Does a Writ of Mandamus Function in Immigration Cases?

A writ of mandamus is awarded by a federal district court in the U.S. against a federal
administrative agency. In regard to immigration law, the lawsuit can be filed against the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, USCIS, as well as other institutions
such as the State Department. The main objective of this lawsuit is to quicken the settlement of a
delayed immigration application.

A writ of mandamus does not ensure that a pending application will be approved. The United
States District Court cannot compel USCIS to decide in a specific way or grant the relief asked.
Instead, the U.S. District Court can order the government to decide such a case as quickly as
possible.

Frequently, the U.S. District Court grants relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
Through the APA, Congress compels those government agencies to act in a timely manner. The
processing of petitions by DHS and USCIS is subject to the "reasonable time" instructions of the
APA. As a result, a plaintiff may file a lawsuit under the APA against USCIS for not acting on
different immigration-related applications, including those for naturalization and status
adjustment.

1.4 Grounds for the Writ of Mandamus

According to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, district courts have jurisdiction over any
mandamus-like action and may order a United States official to perform the duty that arises from
the petition. To get relief, the petitioner must show that:

• The plaintiff clearly has a claim for the relief sought.

• The agency has a definite legal obligation to perform the duty, and
• There are no other adequate remedies available.2

1.4.1 Clear Right to Relief

In a mandamus writ, the "clear right to relief" criteria looks at whether the petitioner falls within
the "area of interest" of the relevant U.S. law. The court specifically examines for what interests
the provision was created and whether the plaintiff's interest is included in this category.

The following two immigration-related situations usually provide clear rights to relief:

Naturalization: Even after fulfilling all the conditions for the application for naturalization, an
individual may still have to wait months or even years for the USCIS to make a final decision.

2
Patel v. Reno (1997), 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997)
According to INA 355(d), the decision of naturalization status must go through the determination
procedure. When USCIS unreasonably delays the processing of naturalization applications, this
provision establishes the right to relief.3

Adjustment of Status: In the context of adjustment of status, unreasonable delays are distressing.
Various federal district courts have stated that, INA 245 provides petitioners with the right to have
their applications for adjustment of status actually adjudicated.4 This provision is a clear right to
relief.

1.4.2 Clear Duty to Perform the act.

In a mandamus lawsuit, the "duty" criterion usually looks at whether the state agency or official
owes the plaintiff an obligation. The courts have established that if the plaintiff has the legal right
to apply, then USCIS is obligated to decide the application. This obligation will still apply even if
USCIS finally exercises discretion in granting the immigration benefit.

1.4.3 No Other Remedy

In a writ of mandamus, the "no other remedy" requirement generally looks at whether the plaintiff
may get relief without a writ of mandamus. This requirement is based on a principle used in many
other legal contexts: one must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking relief in court.
As a result, before filing a writ of mandamus, one must exhaust all available administrative
remedies. One cannot ask for mandamus relief, for instance, if the INA provides a remedy that is
easily obtainable and sufficient.

1.5 Conclusion

A writ of mandamus can solve the administrative issues and speed up the process of acquiring
immigration benefits for an immigrant. Although it is true that a writ of mandamus cannot ensure
the acceptance of immigration-related applications, it can be very useful if someone has a strong
case that is only being denied due to administrative delays. Thus, immigration applicants who are
not getting their immigration benefits despite having favorable cases should seriously consider
writs of mandamus.

3
Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, s. 355(d)
4
Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, s. 245
1.6 References

[1] United States v. McGarr (1972) 461 F.2d 1 (1972) (7th Cir.)

La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. [1957] 352 U.S. 249 [1957]

[2] Patel v. Reno (1997), 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1997)

[3] Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, s. 355(d)

[4] Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, s. 245