Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 8/17/2010. See text of order for details. (ck)

Download PDF
AHMAD v. NAPOLITANO et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAMIM AHMAD, Plaintiff, v. JANET A. NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-1052 (JDB) ORDER Plaintiff Shamim Ahmad filed this petition for writ of mandamus to compel defendants to adjudicate his Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status, in which he sought to adjust his status from asylee to permanent resident. See Petition for Writ of Mandamus 1. He brings two causes of action based on agency action unreasonably delayed under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. Id. 21-39. Presently before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss for mootness. Defendant moves to dismiss this action as moot because the relief sought -- a decision on plaintiff's application -- has been rendered. See Defs.' Mem. at 5; see also Defs.' Fifth Status Report, Ex. A (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") Decision dated July 23, 2010). Where CIS has denied an application for adjustment in status, a plaintiff's request that the Court order CIS to process the application must be dismissed as moot. See Bouguettaya v. Chertoff, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiff does not dispute that CIS has acted on his application; indeed, he has filed no response to defendant's motion. The record is clear that the relief sought by the petition -- adjudication of his application -- has been provided, and that this case must be dismissed as moot. Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. /s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Date: August 17, 2010

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?