Yoni v. Stawinski et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/31/2018. (c/m 7/31/2018 tds, Deputy Clerk, for Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
SEMAHET D. YONI
:
v.

:

Civil No. DKC 18-0423

:
HENRY P. STAWINSKI, III, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Semahet Yoni, a native and citizen of the Ivory
Coast, entered the United States on November 11, 1999 with a
visa waiver in B1 status.
2003.

(ECF No. 1, at 3).

Plaintiff married on October 11,
On July 26, 2004, police responded to

a domestic dispute between Plaintiff and his wife where police
found Plaintiff severely injured.
District

Court

for

Prince

(ECF No. 1-7, at 3).

George’s

County,

Maryland,

The

issued

Plaintiff a Temporary Protective order against Plaintiff’s wife
on July 29 which was converted to a Final Protective Order on
August 5.

(ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4).

Plaintiff

then

applied

Certification (“U-Visa”).
to

victims

of

certain

for

a

U

Nonimmigrant

Status

A U-Visa grants nonimmigrant status
crimes

who

are

cooperating

with

law

enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U).

As part of the U-Visa application

process, Plaintiff submitted Form I-918 Supplement B (“Form I-

918

B”)

to

Prince

Department”).
criminal

George’s

Form

matter.

I-918
An

B

County

Police

certifies

officer

at

Department

Plaintiff’s

the

(“the

relevant

Department

signed

Plaintiff’s Form I-918 B on December 26, 2013, and Plaintiff’s
U-Visa

was

approved

by

the

(“DHS”) on December 3, 2014.
Three

years

after

Department

of

Homeland

Security

(ECF Nos. 1, 1-5).
Plaintiff’s

U-Visa

was

approved,

Plaintiff applied to change his immigration status and become a
lawful permanent resident.

The application required Plaintiff

to submit a new Form I-918 B to the Department.

Officials at

the Department declined to sign Plaintiff’s new Form I-918 B on
November

6,

2017

because

Plaintiff

proceedings against his wife.

never

initiated

criminal

(ECF No. 7-2, at 2).

On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a
writ of mandamus to compel Defendants Henry Stawinski, Chief of
the Department, and Rodney Gause, a sergeant, to sign his new
Form I-918 B.

(ECF No. 1, at 7).1

1

Defendants filed a motion to

Although Plaintiff signed his complaint to proceed pro se,
Plaintiff’s summonses, civil cover sheet, and motion in
opposition of Defendant’s motion to dismiss all reference the
Ryan Konan law offices.
On June 5, 2018, this court issued
notice to Mr. Konan stating that Local Rule 102.1.a.ii requires
attorneys who have prepared any documents submitted for filing
by a self-represented litigant must be members of the Bar of
this Court and must sign the document. (ECF No. 11). On June
11, 2018, Mr. Konan responded saying that he represents
Plaintiff in a separate immigration matter, and that Plaintiff
has not retained Mr. Konan’s law office in this matter.
2

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on May 22, 2018.

(ECF No. 7,

at 3).2
Federal

courts

“do[]

not

have

jurisdiction

mandamus relief against state officials.”

to

grant

In re Smith, 724

F.App’x 220, 220 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Gurley v. Superior Court
of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)); see,
e.g., Owens-El v. Maryland, No. JKB-17-3057, 2017 WL 5257079, at
*1

(Nov.

complaint

9,

2017)

seeking

(dismissing
a

writ

of

for

lack

mandamus

of

jurisdiction

against

a

non-federal

entities); Martin v. Maryland, No. PJM-16-2706, 2017 WL 3315274,
at *5 (D.Md. Aug. 3, 2017) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction
a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus against a state court).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint seeking a writ of mandamus
against county police officials must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.3

Plaintiff is thus regarded as proceeding
Konan’s assistance.

pro se

without Mr.

2

Although Defendants labeled their motion as one seeking
dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), it sought dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and, therefore, it is
properly construed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
3

Even if jurisdiction existed, “mandamus cannot be used to
compel the performance of discretionary duties,” Infinity v.
Wiggins, No. RDB–10–1359, 2010 WL 3167925, at *1 (D.Md. Aug. 9,
2010), and the decision to sign a Form I-918 B is discretionary.
Ordonez Orosco v. Napoliatno, 598 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2010);
see United States v. Biao, 98-cr-2812-BTM, 2011 WL 607087, at *1
(S.D.Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (“The decision of whether or not to
3

Plaintiff’s response contends that courts can issue writs
of mandamus in the U-Visa context because state officials are
acting pursuant to power delegated by Congress.

(ECF No. 10, at

5).

process.

This

is

a

misstatement

of

the

U-Visa

The

certification of U-Visas is exclusively the jurisdiction of the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services division of
DHS.

8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1).

Form I-918 B is part of the

initial evidence DHS uses to certify that a U-Visa “applicant
has

been

a

victim

of

qualifying

criminal

activity

that

the

certifying official’s agency is investigating or prosecuting[.]”
8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(2)(i).

Under § 214.14(c)(2)(i), federal,

state, or local law enforcement agencies investigating a crime
pertaining to a U-Visa application can complete Form I-918 B,
and DHS retains the sole authority to certify U-Visas.

Thus,

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants will be granted. A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

issue certification
discretionary.”).

to

qualify

4

for

U

Nonimmigrant

status

is