1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SONDOS KULLAB, Case No. 24-cv-04179-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 9

10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12

13 Plaintiff Sondos Kullab alleges that she filed an application for asylum with defendant 14 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in November 2020. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 12. 15 She says defendants, namely USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security, their lead executive 16 officers, and the director of the San Francisco Asylum Office, have done nothing to process the 17 application since then, and that she was advised in May 2024 that the application was still “under 18 review.” Id. ¶¶ 13-16. Kullab attributes the delay to defendants’ policy of processing asylum 19 applications on a “last in first out” basis, which she believes will effectively foreclose any realistic 20 possibility that her application will ever be “fully adjudicated.” Id. ¶ 17. Kullab alleges a 21 violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5. U.S.C. § 500 et seq., and a claim for an 22 order compelling defendants to process her application under the Mandamus Act,

1361. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 19-29. 24 Defendants ask for summary judgment in their favor on all counts. Dkt. No. 20. 25 Defendants also contend, in a very cursory argument, that the Court lacks statutory jurisdiction to 26 hear the APA claim.

. Defendants do not dispute that Kullab applied for asylum on 27 1 the date she alleges and that her application has not been processed. Overall, there are no material 2 facts in question or doubt. 3 Defendants represent, without challenge, that more than 6,800 similar lawsuits to compel 4 the processing of asylum applications have been filed against them since January 2023. Dkt. 5 No. 20-1 at ¶ 58 (Decl. of J. Lafferty, Chief of the Asylum Division within USCIS). One of these 6 cases bears particular mention here. While defendants’ summary judgment motion was pending, 7 another judge in this district granted summary judgment in favor of the government in Kullab v. 8 United States Dept. of Homeland Security, Case No. 24-cv-04140,

(N.D. Cal. 9 March 25, 2025). The plaintiff there was Yasmin Kullab, her case was filed within two days of 10 this one, and the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in both cases is the same. These circumstances 11 indicate the likelihood of a family relationship between plaintiffs, although the parties did not spell 12 that out. Other than the names of the plaintiffs, the two cases are identical. The complaints are 13 word-for-word the same, including the dates when the applications were filed. See Dkt. No.1; 14 Dkt. No. 1 in Case No. 24-cv-04140. Defendants’ briefs and arguments in support of summary 15 judgment are the same, as are the supporting declarations of Lafferty and others. See Dkt. No. 20; 16 Dkt. No. 13 in Case No. 24-cv-04140. Plaintiff’s opposition briefs and arguments are the same. 17 See Dkt. No. 23; Dkt. No. 16 in Case No. 24-cv-04140. To be clear, “the same” means carbon 18 copies of each other with only the first name of the plaintiffs changed. 19 A good argument can be made that both cases should have been related before a single 20 judge under Civil Local Rule 3-12. The parties should have at least raised the issue in the lowest- 21 numbered case as Rule 3-12 requires. In any event, summary judgment was granted in Case 22 No. 24-cv-04140 in favor of defendants in a reasoned decision. 23 The Court has independently reviewed the arguments and record in this case, and the 24 summary judgment order in Case No. 24-cv-04140. See

. The Court adopts the 25 order in full, and grants summary judgment in favor of defendants for the same reasons stated in 26 Case No. 24-cv-04140. This includes the determination that jurisdiction exists over the APA 27 claim in the present circumstances. See

, at *4-5. 1 Consequently, the Court concludes that the delay in deciding Kullab’s asylum application 2 || has not been unreasonable as of yet, and so defendants are entitled to summary judgment. This is 3 || not to say that Kullab has no judicial recourse forevermore. A consensus is emerging in the 4 || district courts that delays longer than the one Kullab has experienced may be inherently 5 |} unreasonable. See

. Judgment will be entered in favor the defendants without prejudice to 6 || renewed claims by Kullab as future circumstances warrant. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 16, 2025 9 JAM ONATO 10 Unit@f States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28