PRYMAS VAZ V. DAVID NEAL, No. 21-15913 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), maintains an Attorney Discipline Program. Under the Program, Plaintiff filed a complaint against his former attorney. Plaintiff sought to compel the EOIR to complete its investigation of his complaint against his former attorney and to report its investigation results. Plaintiff relief on the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action seeking to compel the Executive Office for Immigration Review to complete its investigation of Plaintiff’s complaint. The court held that the district court erred in treating the requirements for obtaining relief under the APA as jurisdictional and dismissing the complaint on that basis. The court reasoned that because Mandamus relief and relief under the APA are in essence the same, Plaintiff had an adequate remedy under the APA. The court followed precedent and chose to analyze the APA claim only. Here, the EOIR had a clear, mandatory duty to investigate Plaintiff’s complaint within a reasonable time, but it had no duty to report its investigation results to Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff would only be entitled to relief if the EOIR unreasonably delayed in carrying out its duty to investigate. The court applied the six-factor balancing test announced in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984), holding that the EOIR’s delay was not unreasonable under the APA.
Court Description: Administrative Procedure Act/Mandamus Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action seeking to compel the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that maintains an Attorney Discipline Program, to complete its investigation of plaintiff’s complaint against his former attorney and to report its investigation to plaintiff. The panel treated the district court’s dismissal as a grant of summary judgment because the district court relied on evidence outside the complaint. Because mandamus relief and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) are in essence the same, and plaintiff had an adequate remedy under the APA, the panel followed Ninth Circuit precedent and chose to analyze the APA claim only. The panel held that the district court erred in treating the requirements for obtaining relief under the APA as jurisdictional and dismissing the complaint on that basis. ** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. VAZ V. NEAL 3 Plaintiff’s APA claim, alleging that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) failed to perform its duties under federal regulations, arose under the laws of the United States, and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Addressing the merits, the panel held that the EOIR had a clear, mandatory duty to investigate plaintiff’s complaint within a reasonable time, but it had no duty to report its investigation results to plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff would only be entitled to relief if the EOIR unreasonably delayed in carrying out its duty to investigate. Applying the six-factor balancing test announced in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79–80 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the panel held that the EOIR’s delay was not unreasonable under the APA.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.