-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USAMA ABU SAIF,

)

Plaintiff,

v.

JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY; LORETTA E.

LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE UNITED STATES; LEON

RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID

RADEL, ACTING DIRECTOR, LOS

ANGELES ASYLUM OFFICE, UNITED

STATES CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES; AND

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 8:15-CV-02172

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF IN THE

NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF

Anish Vashistha, Esq., State ID No. 244276

E-mail: anish@lawfirmav.com

Law Firm of Anish Vashistha, APLC

5055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. #320

Los Angeles, CA 90036-6101

Telephone: (323) 592-9980

Facsimile: (323) 592-3260

Attorney for Plaintiff,

USAMA ABU SAIF

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal

Question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) (Civil Rights) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supplemental

Jurisdiction). This Court also has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Mandamus Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act).

2. This Court may grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question), 28

U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (Declaratory Relief), the

Administrative Procedures Act, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.

3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) in that the United States Department of Homeland

Security and the United States Attorney General’s Office avail themselves of the Court’s

jurisdiction, maintain offices within the Court’s jurisdiction, and conduct business within

the Court’s jurisdiction. Also, Usama Abu Saif resides in Anaheim Hills, California,

which is within the jurisdiction of the Court, and the acts and omissions underlying the

causes of action in this matter arose within this Court’s jurisdiction.

INTRODUCTION

4. Plaintiff Usama Abu Saif (hereinafter “Usama Abu Saif” or “Plaintiff”),

whose Alien-Registration Number is 208-066-947, was harmed by Defendants’ violations

of federal statutes and their own regulations. Defendants have mis-administered the

relevant system and processing time that determines when individuals applying for

asylum are interviewed and granted that status. Specifically, Defendants’ failures and

errors have prevented Usama Abu Saif from having his application for asylum, also

known as an asylum application, which is filed on what is known as a Form I-589,

Application for Asylum and for Witholding of Removal, adjudicated and therefore from

being interviewed and granted asylee status in the United States of America (hereinafter

“United States”).

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Usama Abu Saif lawfully entered the United States and has continuously

maintained lawful status or authorized stay. On or about February 12, 2015, Usama Abu

Saif submitted his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Witholding of Removal,

and that application was received by and filed with the United States Department of

Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter

“United States Citizenship and Immigration Services” or “USCIS”) on or about February

13, 2015 under receipt number ZLA-15-000-22360. He was given authorization to

remain in the United States until his asylum application is decided. Defendants have

delayed the adjudication of Usama Abu Saif’s application for asylum for more than ten

months beyond the standard forty-five day initial interview scheduling procedure outlined

in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii).

6. Usama Abu Saif and/or his immigration attorney on his behalf has/have

informed Defendants via telephone and/or written correspondence of their errors in

delaying and failing to adjudicate in a timely manner the application for asylum, which if

and once approved would grant Usama Abu Saif as well as his spouse and children asylee

status, making them eligible potentially to apply for Lawful Permanent Residency in the

United States one year thereafter. Defendants have not corrected their errors. Usama

Abu Saif has requested that Defendants comply with the law and their own procedures,

but Defendants have refused. As of the date of the instant Complaint, Usama Abu Saif’s

application for asylum has not been adjudicated.

7. Usama Abu Saif lawfully entered the United States and was given

authorization to remain in the United States until his asylum application is decided.

8. Usama Abu Saif has waited for many months to have a resolution to his

immigration-related matter, namely, be granted asylee status in the United States, and

continues to wait in light of Defendants’ failure to act and to comply with the law.

9. Defendants’ failures have prevented Usama Abu Saif both from being

granted asylee status and thus from beginning to stabilize his life. These failures have

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

also delayed Usama Abu Saif from becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident. Defendants’

actions and misinterpretations of the law have cost Usama Abu Saif untold lost

opportunities for social and professional advancement and have greatly interfered with

and disrupted his life.

10. Usama Abu Saif and/or his immigration attorney on his behalf has/have

inquired with and have complained to Defendants about the delay without any resolution.

Usama Abu Saif seeks mandamus, declarative, and injunctive relief against Defendants

for Defendants’ policies, practices, interpretations of law, misrepresentations, and failures

to administer properly the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”) and

applicable regulations.

PARTIES

11. Usama Abu Saif (hereinafter “Mr. Abu Saif”) is a citizen of Ukraine

and lawfully entered the United States as a valid nonimmigrant, on what is known

as a B-2 visitor visa. He has maintained his lawful status or authorized stay, and

he is presently lawfully living in the United States. He has been awaiting

adjudication of his asylum application since approximately February 12, 2015,

when he filed his application for asylum. He currently resides in Anaheim Hills,

California. His Alien-Registration Number is 208-066-947, and his asylum

application bears tracking number ZLA-15-000-22360.

12. Defendant Jeh Johnson (hereinafter “Mr. Johnson”) is the Secretary of

the United States Department of Homeland Security and is sued herein in his

official capacity. Mr. Johnson is responsible for the administration of the INA as it

relates to USCIS in particular and to United States Immigration in general. Mr.

Johnson’s rulings on matters of law are binding on USCIS.

13. Defendant Loretta E. Lynch (hereinafter “Ms. Lynch”) is the Attorney

General of the United States and is sued herein in her official capacity. Ms. Lynch was

responsible for the administration of the INA as it related to the legacy Immigration and

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4

-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Naturalization Services (hereinafter “INS”), the functions of which as they relate to this

lawsuit were transferred to USCIS. Her rulings on matters of law were binding on INS.

14. Defendant Leon Rodriguez (hereinafter “Mr. Rodriguez”) is the Director of

USCIS. Mr. Rodriguez is under the jurisdiction of Mr. Johnson and is sued herein in his

official capacity. Mr. Rodriguez is responsible for all actions and inactions by USCIS.

15. Defendant David Radel (hereinafter “Mr. Radel”) is the Acting Director of

the Los Angeles Asylum Office of USCIS and is responsible for the actions and inactions

of that Los Angeles Asylum Office. Mr. Radel is sued in his official capacity.

16. Defendant USCIS is a sub-agency of the United States. It is responsible for

the adjudication of asylum applications that fall within its jurisdiction. The USCIS field

office with jurisdiction over an asylum applicant’s place of residence is responsible for

conducting that applicant’s asylum interview, should such an interview be scheduled by

USCIS.

17. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that all Defendants have a role in

the actions and/or omissions of which Plaintiff has complained have harmed Plaintiff as

related herein.

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

18. There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiff to redress the

grievances described herein. To the extent that any administrative remedies do exist, they

have been fully exhausted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19. Usama Abu Saif was born on April 1, 1974. He is a citizen and national of

Ukraine. He lawfully entered the United States on October 9, 2014.

20. On or about February 13, 2015, Usama Abu Saif filed with USCIS a Form I-

589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, bearing USCIS receipt

number ZLA-15-000-22360. Proof of receipt by USCIS of that pending asylum

application was issued to Mr. Abu Saif, who concurrently was provided his Alien-

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5

-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Registration Number, 208-066-947. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii), Mr. Abu

Saif reasonably expected to be scheduled for his asylum interview within approximately

forty-five days after receipt by USCIS of his asylum application.

21. Usama Abu Saif’s pending asylum application meets all legal and

procedural requirements for approval, and there are no exceptional circumstances that

would merit a delay in his being interviewed.

22. Defendants are not legally permitted not to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s

asylum application.

23. Despite due diligence by Usama Abu Saif, Defendants have not applied and

refuse to apply properly the law to Usama Abu Saif’s pending asylum application by

refusing to adjudicate that application.

24. Defendants refuse and fail to adjudicate the asylum application to

completion.

25. Defendants are required to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application.

26. Defendants are required to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application

in a timely fashion.

27. Defendants’ failure to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application has

prejudiced Usama Abu Saif.

28. Usama Abu Saif is law abiding and has positively contributed, and continues

to contribute positively, to the United States.

29. Defendants’ delay, actions, and omissions in this case are unreasonable.

30. Defendants, in violation of the law, are unlawfully withholding or

unreasonably delaying action on Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application and have failed to

carry out the adjudicative and administrative functions delegated to them by law with

regard to Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application.

31. Usama Abu Saif has a clear and certain claim.

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6

-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32. The duty owed is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from

doubt.

33. No other adequate remedy is available.

34. Usama Abu Saif has been greatly damaged by the failure of Defendants to

act in accord with their duties under the law.

35. By misapplying the law and failing to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum

application to fruition, Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

36. The actions and inactions of Defendants have individually and collectively

damaged Usama Abu Saif.

37. Usama Abu Saif has a right to speedy adjudication of his asylum application.

38. Usama Abu Saif is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in this action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the INA and Regulations

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

40. Defendants’ failure to adjudicate and continued refusal to adjudicate Usama

Abu Saif’s asylum application, an application that is pending before Defendants, violates

the INA and the corresponding regulations.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Claim for Injunctive Relief

41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

42. Usama Abu Saif has a legal right to have Defendants fully adjudicate his

asylum application pending before Defendants. There exists no legal basis for

Defendants’ failure to adjudicate the asylum application after considerable delay.

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7

-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ failure to complete adjudication of the asylum application pending before

Defendants violates 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Usama Abu Saif has already suffered great harm,

prejudice, and injury by Defendants’ failures and delay. Unless relief is promptly and

permanently granted by this Court, Usama Abu Saif will suffer great and irreparable

damage.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief from the Court:

A. Assume jurisdiction of this matter;

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff;

C. Order the immediate adjudication of Plaintiff’s pending asylum application;

D. Order Defendants to furnish Plaintiff’s counsel and immigration attorney, if

any, immediately with the interview notice of Plaintiff’s pending asylum

application;

E. Conduct immediately Plaintiff’s asylum interview;

F. Declare that Defendants’ delay violated the law;

G. Grant Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other disbursements

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

H. Award such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and

proper.

DATED: December 30, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

ANISH VASHISTHA, ESQ.

s/ Anish Vashistha

By: Anish Vashistha, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Usama Abu Saif

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing “COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF IN THE

NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF”

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Central District of

California by using the Court’s CM/ECF system on December 30, 2015.

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that

service will be accomplished by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

Executed on December 30, 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

s/ Anish Vashistha_______________

Anish Vashistha, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9