Bazzoun v. United States Embassy, Beirut, Lebanon

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMIR BAZZOUN,
PLAINTIFF,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-12711
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

V.
UNITED STATES EMBASSY, BEIRUT, LEBANON,
DEFENDANT.
/
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DOC # 1)
On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the United States Embassy in Beirut,
Lebanon improperly managed his parent’s application for visas to enter the United States,
causing undue delay. He alleges that the application process “should not take more than three
months,” without citing any legal authority. Compl., at 2. Plaintiff requests that the Court inquire
as to the Embassy’s reason(s) for the delay.
While the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over immigration affairs, Plaintiff does not
have standing to file this claim. To accomplish Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish
these elements:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally
protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or
imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ” Second, there must be a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained or—the injury has to
be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e]
result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third,
it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be
redressed by a “favorable decision.”
Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).

Plaintiff fails to allege an “injury in fact” that is “concrete” and “particularized.” Plaintiff
does not allege that his rights are being infringed, given that the visa applications are not filed on
his behalf.
Furthermore, Plaintiff requests judicial review of an administrative agency decision, yet fails
to cite to any U.S. civil statute as the basis for his cause of action. Compl., at 4; See 5 U.S.C. §
702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or
aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
thereof.”).
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of standing.
IT IS ORDERED.
/S/ Victoria A. Roberts _
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: August 12, 2014