Tran v. Holder et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/27/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
NHUNG THI TRAN
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 10-2503
:
ERIC HOLDER, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Several motions are presently pending in this immigration
dispute.
First, Defendants Eric Holder, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
and Daniel Renaud have moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 13).
addition,
Plaintiff
Nhung
Thi
Tran
has
filed
a
In
motion
for
summary judgment and two identical motions for default judgment.
(ECF Nos. 11, 15, 16).
The issues are briefed and the court now
rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed
necessary.
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion to
dismiss will be granted and Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
I.
Background
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Nhung Thi Tran is a
United States citizen.
Tran
filed
Immigration
a
Form
(ECF No. 1 ¶ 2).
I-130
Services
visa
(“CIS”),
petition
seeking
On November 20, 2008,
with
an
Citizenship
immigrant
visa
behalf of her husband, Trung Pham, a Vietnamese national.
¶
9).
CIS
approved
the
petition
on
February
3,
and
2009
on
(Id.
and
transferred it to a Department of State (“DOS”) consular office
in Vietnam.
(Id.).
On December 29, 2009, the DOS returned the
petition to CIS for possible revocation after a consular officer
questioned the legitimacy of Tran’s marriage to Pham.
¶ 10).
(Id.
The consular officer refused Tran’s requests to hold the
case in abeyance pending DNA results demonstrating that Tran was
pregnant with Pham’s child.
(Id.).
Tran filed a complaint with this court on September 10,
2010.
(ECF No. 1).
immigrant
visa,
¶¶ 16, 21).
At the time, Pham had not been issued an
allegedly
despite
numerous
inquiries.
(Id.
The complaint contends that Defendants’ refusal to
issue the visa was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful under
the Administrative Procedure Act.
(Id. ¶¶ 19-20).
Tran seeks a
writ of mandamus compelling CIS and DOS to make a decision on
Pham’s visa within sixty days.
(Id. ¶ 22).
All parties now concede, however, that Pham was issued a
visa on April 22, 2011.
(ECF No. 15, Ex. B; ECF No. 13 at 1).
Nevertheless, Tran filed the pending motion for summary judgment
on May 3.
(ECF No. 11).
On May 20, 2011 Defendants filed the
pending motion to dismiss Tran’s claim as moot.
Tran did not file any opposition.
(ECF No. 13).
Instead, although Pham was
admitted as an immigrant to the United States on June 8 (ECF No.
15, Ex. A), Tran filed the pending motions for default judgment
2
on
June
23,
2011.
(ECF
shortly thereafter.
II.
Nos.
15,
16).
Defendants
opposed
(ECF No. 17).
Analysis
Defendants
seek
dismissal
because,
in
their
view,
this
action is moot “[i]n light of the April 22, 2011 issuance of [a]
visa[] on behalf of Trung Duc Pham.”
(ECF No. 13, at 4).
Because mootness goes to the “heart” of the court’s Article III
jurisdiction, Friedman’s Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th
Cir.
2002),
motion
to
Defendants
dismiss
appropriately
under
Federal
raise
Rule
of
the
issue
Civil
via
a
Procedure
12(b)(1), see, e.g., White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.
2000)
(explaining
mootness
is
appropriately
raised
in
Rule
12(b)(1) motion); Friends of Animals v. Salazar, 670 F.Supp.2d
7,
11
(D.D.C.
2009)
showing mootness.
(same).
Defendants
have
the
burden
of
Allen, Allen, Allen, & Allen v. Williams, 254
F.Supp.2d 614, 626 (E.D.Va. 2003).
“A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer
‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.”
City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 277 (2000)
(citation omitted).
“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide
moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only
to actual cases or controversies.”
Heckler,
464
U.S.
67,
70
(1983)
3
Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v.
(citation
omitted).
“[N]o
justiciable controversy is presented . . . when the question
sought
to
be
developments.”
omitted).
adjudicated
has
been
mooted
by
subsequent
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (citation
“[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff must have
suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to
the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.”
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citation and
quotation marks omitted); see also Townes v. Jarvis, 577 F.3d
543, 554 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1883 (2010).
These general principles apply with equal force in the mandamus
context.
See, e.g., 52 Am.Jur.2d Mandamus § 45 (2011 supp.)
(“Mandamus
will
not
issue
in
the
case
of
.
.
.
moot
questions.”).
Here, Tran’s only requested relief is a writ of mandamus
compelling
defendants
to
adjudicate
Pham’s
visa
application.
Both parties acknowledge that defendants did precisely this on
April 22, 2011.
(ECF No. 15, Ex. B; ECF No. 13 at 1).
“[O]nce
the public duty has occurred, the prayer that mandamus be issued
compelling [a public officer] to perform that public duty is
moot.”
R.A.F. v. Robinson, 286 Ga. 644, 646 (2010) (quotation
marks omitted); accord Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 813 F.2d
48, 51 (3d Cir. 1987); Gray v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 771 F.2d
1504, 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1089 (1986).
4
Federal
courts
have
mandamus
actions
are
routinely
moot
concluded
where,
as
rendered the requested adjudication.
that
here,
the
immigration
agency
has
See, e.g., Mohammed v.
Holder, 695 F.Supp.2d 284, 289 (E.D.Va. 2010) (holding petition
for writ of mandamus to compel CIS to adjudicate adjustment of
status application moot when CIS had already adjudicated the
application).
Indeed,
courts
have
often
dismissed
as
moot
mandamus actions requesting adjudication of an I-130 petition
once the petition has been adjudicated.
See, e.g., Iredia v.
Fitzgerald, No. 10-228, 2010 WL 2994215, at *3 (E.D.Pa. July 27,
2010); Brown v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 2007-0065, 2008 WL
2329314, at *1 (D.V.I. June 3, 2008); Ordonez-Garay v. Chertoff,
No. CV F 06-1835 AWI SMS, 2007 WL 2904226, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Oct.
3, 2007); Ariwodo v. Hudson, No. H-06-1907, 2006 WL 2729386, at
*3 (S.D.Tex. Sept. 26, 2006).
As such, the action is moot and will be dismissed.
Because
Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted, Tran’s motions
for summary and default judgment will be denied as moot.
5
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss
will
be
granted
and
Plaintiff’s
motions
will
be
denied.
separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
6
A
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?