Ahmadabadi v. Lambrecht et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/9/19. 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is GRANTED.(lgale, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19-cv-01215-KLM
FARID SHEKARCHIAN AHMADABADI,
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, and
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction [#13]1 (the “Motion”). Plaintiff has not filed a Response to the
Motion [#13]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the case file, and the applicable law, and
is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion [#13]
On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus (the “Writ”) [#4] seeking to
[#13] is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order.
This case has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), on consent of the parties. See [#12, #15].
compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to complete his
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Application”). Writ
[#4] ¶¶ 2, 24(b). According to Plaintiff, he was born in Iran, entered the United States in
2012 with a valid B1 visa, married a U.S. citizen, and filed the Application in 2017. Id. ¶¶
11-12, 14. Plaintiff states that “[s]ince then, there has been no response to the I–485, [so]
Plaintiff remains unreasonably in limbo regarding his status.” Id. ¶ 17.
Defendants contend that USCIS denied his Application in June of 2019
(approximately two months after the filing of this lawsuit), thereby making this action moot.
Motion [#13] at 3. For that reason, Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and therefore they move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Id. at
II. Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is to test whether
the Court has jurisdiction to properly hear the case before it. Because “federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction,” the Court must have a statutory basis to exercise its
jurisdiction. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Statutes conferring subject-matter jurisdiction on federal courts are to be strictly construed.
F & S Constr. Co. v. Jensen, 337 F.2d 160, 161 (10th Cir. 1964). “The burden of
establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citing
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) may take two forms: facial attack or
factual attack. Holt, 46 F.3d at 1002. When reviewing a facial attack on a complaint, the
Court accepts the allegations of the complaint as true. Id. By contrast, when reviewing a
factual attack on a complaint, the Court “may not presume the truthfulness of the
complaint’s factual allegations.” Id. at 1003. With a factual attack, the moving party
challenges the facts upon which subject-matter jurisdiction depends. Id. Therefore, the
Court must make its own findings of fact. Id. In order to make its findings regarding
disputed jurisdictional facts, the Court “has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other
documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing.” Id. (citing Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. United
States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990); Wheeler v. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 259 n.5
(10th Cir. 1987)). The Court’s reliance on “evidence outside the pleadings” to make
findings concerning purely jurisdictional facts does not convert a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Id.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’ and
‘Controversies,’ and an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is
filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” Kansas by & through Kansas Dep’t for
Children & Families v. SourceAmerica, 874 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1975 (2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). “In considering mootness, we ask whether granting a present
determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” SourceAmerica,
874 F.3d at 1236 (quoting Fleming v. Gutierrez, 785 F.3d 442, 444-45 (10th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). “A case is moot . . . where the relief sought can no
longer be given or is no longer needed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the case is moot because there is not an actual controversy and therefore,
there is no relief for the Court to provide. Plaintiff asks that the Court compel Defendants
to act on the Application. Writ [#4] ¶ 24(a). Yet, USCIS has already denied the Application.
Motion [#13] Ex. 1 at 6. In its denial, USCIS stated that Plaintiff’s alleged wife, Magali
Rodriguez, withdrew a Petition for Alien Relative form that she had submitted on Plaintiff’s
behalf. Id. Moreover, she informed USCIS that Plaintiff offered to pay her “$10,000 to
enter into a fraudulent marriage [to] . . . circumvent immigration laws.” Id. The denial
explained that because Plaintiff testified that the information in the Application was true and
correct, while also stating that he was married to Rodriguez, he had misrepresented a
material fact. Id. at 6-7. In consequence, USCIS denied the Application. Id. Irrespective
of Plaintiff’s marital status, the Court cannot compel Defendants to act because USCIS has
already done so. See Ahmadabadi v. Lambrecht, No. 15-cv-01459-RM-MEH, 2015 WL
7075669 (D. Colo. Nov. 12, 2015) (Plaintiff’s petition for mandamus to compel USCIS to
act was rendered moot because the agency had already done so). Just as Defendants
note, “now that USCIS has acted on Plaintiff’s I-485 application, the Court lacks jurisdiction
to order USCIS to act [on] an application that it has already adjudicated.” Motion [#13] at
4. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed no response attempting to show that
dismissal of this action is inappropriate.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Writ [#4] is moot. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore
dismissed without prejudice. See Lewis v. Burger King, 398 F. App’x 323, 325 n.3 (10th
Cir. 2010) (stating that dismissal due to mootness must be without prejudice).
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#13] is GRANTED and that the case is
DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
DATED: October 9, 2019
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?