Asmai v. Johnson et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/5/2017 GRANTING 31 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING the 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus as moot; DENYING the 32 Motion for Judgment insofar as it asks the Court to retain Jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
JEH JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland
Security, Eric Holder, James Comey, Leon Rodriguez, and Mary-Carmen Jordan’s (collectively
“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment. (ECF
No. 32.) Both parties oppose the other’s motion. (ECF Nos. 33 & 37.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff sought permanent residence through an application with Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“CIS”). (ECF No. 1.) CIS refused to review the application and Plaintiff
brought this suit for a Writ of Mandamus compelling CIS to review his application. (ECF No. 1.)
On November 29, 2016, CIS approved Plaintiff’s application for lawful permanent residence.
(ECF No. 31-1 at 1.) Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on February 6, 2017, arguing that
the petition for writ of mandamus is moot. (ECF No. 31 at 2.) Plaintiff also filed his motion on
February 6, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff acknowledges that CIS has approved his application
and asks the Court to retain jurisdiction pending his filing and review of a naturalization
application. (ECF No. 32 at 5.) Defendant contends there is no current case or controversy from
which the Court can retain jurisdiction and Plaintiff has not amended his complaint to add claims
of failure to review a naturalization application. (ECF No. 33 at 1–2.)
The Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to the consideration of “cases” and
“controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[F]ederal courts are without power to decide
questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” N.C. v. Rice, 404 U.S.
244, 246 (1971) (citation omitted). The focus of a mootness inquiry “is whether there can be any
effective relief.” Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation
omitted). Here, the Court cannot grant effective relief because CIS approved Plaintiff’s
application for lawful permanent residence — the sole relief sought in the petition. (ECF No. 1 at
5.) Accordingly, the petition is moot and should be dismissed.
Plaintiff requests this Court retain jurisdiction because it fears CIS will reverse its decision
regarding permanent residence or deny his application for U.S. citizenship. (ECF No. 37 at 2.)
Courts may retain jurisdiction where federal statute does not afford the plaintiff the right to
practical judicial review. McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496–97 (1991).
Here, as Defendants point out, federal statute affords Plaintiff the right to judicial review if CIS
either revokes his status as a permanent resident or denies his application for citizenship. (ECF
No. 33 at 2.) Accordingly, this Court cannot retain jurisdiction.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s petition is dismissed as MOOT. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment is DENIED insofar as
it asks the Court to retain jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 5, 2017
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?