UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID ABIODUN K.G.B. ONAFEKO, Pro se Plaintiff, v. Case No. 19-cv-0007 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2018, David Onafeko, a British citizen seeking asylum in the United States, filed three applications for employment authorization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). The agency denied each application as premature under a regulation that requires applicants to wait 150 days until after USCIS receives a complete asylum claim to seek employment authorization. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1). Mr. Onafeko, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed suit against USCIS complaining that it erred in denying his employment authorization applications, which the Court construed a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Order 1 (Feb. 4, 2020). Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment and portions of the administrative record. The only dispute between the parties is whether USCIS correctly calculated the regulatory 150-day waiting period in denying Onafeko’s three employment authorization applications. Finding no basis to conclude that USCIS acted arbitrarily or contrary to the asylum regulations, the Court will grant summary judgment to the agency. I. Background In January 2018, Onafeko obtained a visa to travel to the United States. Compl., Exh. A, ECF No. 1-2 at 12–13. 1 After arriving in the country, he submitted a claim for asylum (Form I- 589). Onafeko then filed three successive applications for employment authorization (Form I- 765) at various points in 2018, each of which was denied by USCIS. In rejecting each application, the agency explained that Onafeko was “not eligible for employment authorization” at the time of each application because “less than 150 days had elapsed on the clock used to calculate employment eligibility.” Id. at 3. In January 2019, Onafeko filed suit against the agency complaining that it had improperly denied his three employment authorization applications. The Government moved to dismiss, and Onafeko filed a response which included a demand for summary judgment in his favor. Pl. Opp. ¶¶ 1–2. The Court construed Onafeko’s suit as one challenging agency action under the APA. Order 1 (Feb. 4, 2020). It therefore converted the Government’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and directed the Government to file at least the portions of the administrative record that pertain to its calculation of the 150-day asylum clock as to Onafeko’s various applications. Id. at 2–3. Before the Court are the cross-motions for summary judgment and relevant portions of the administrative record. The administrative record includes a declaration from the Section Chief of the USCIS Texas Service Center, the center that received each of Onafeko’s employment authorization applications, which explains how USCIS calculated the asylum clock in Onafeko’s case and why it denied each employment authorization application at issue. See 1 The Court refers to the ECF-generated page number, not the handwritten page number at the bottom of each page. 2 Decl. of Michael Rich (“Rich Decl.”), ECF No. 26-1. It also includes records ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals