Jelde v. Dooley et al
ORDER - Jelde is ordered to show cause by Friday, January 24, 2014 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Failure to file a memorandum by that date will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 01/17/14. (BJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 13-CV-3610 (PJS/JJG)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SHARON V. DOOLEY, Field Office
Director, St. Paul Field Office, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service; JANET
NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security; and MOLLA JELDE
P. Chinedu Nwaneri, NWANERI LAW FIRM, PLLC, for plaintiff.
Plaintiff Sara Jelde has applied to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Her
naturalization proceeding is pending, and, as part of that proceeding, United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has requested that Jelde and defendant Molla Jelde Edati
undergo a joint blood or DNA test in order to determine whether Edati is Jelde’s biological father
(as Jelde claimed in her naturalization application). Jelde brings this case seeking an order
declaring USCIS’s request for evidence null and void or, alternatively, requiring Edati to undergo
the requested test. Jelde has also filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) enjoining USCIS from making any determination on Jelde’s naturalization application
until the Court determines whether to grant Jelde the relief that she seeks. ECF No. 10.
As an initial matter, Jelde should not have filed her TRO motion ex parte. There is
absolutely no emergency in this case, which is why the Court declined Jelde’s request to provide
expedited treatment to her motion for a preliminary injunction. The deadline for Jelde and Edati
to comply with the request of USCIS has already expired — indeed, it expired three weeks ago,
long before Jelde moved for a TRO. See Am. Compl. ¶ 22 [ECF No. 4]. USCIS has not yet
made a decision on Jelde’s application, and there is no indication that such a decision is
imminent. Moreover, there would be no emergency even if USCIS were to make a decision on
Jelde’s naturalization application. If USCIS were to grant Jelde’s application, the remedies
sought by Jelde would become moot. If USCIS were to deny Jelde’s application, Jelde could
seek administrative review and then judicial review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); 8
C.F.R. § 336.9(d). In particular, if USCIS were to deny Jelde’s application because she failed to
submit the requested evidence — and if, as Jelde argues, such a decision would be unlawful —
then Jelde could ask that USCIS’s decision be reversed.
In short, Jelde had no reason to demand that this Court drop everything to decide her case.
It may be months before USCIS makes even an initial decision on her application to become a
naturalized citizen — and, if USCIS denies her application, Jelde will have every opportunity to
argue that the USCIS’s decision was unlawful. There is no threat of immediate and irreparable
injury to Jelde.
Because Jelde is not facing any immediate threat, the Court will not consider her motion
on an ex parte basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (permitting courts to issue a temporary
restraining order without notice to the adverse party only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a
verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition . . . .”). Accordingly, Jelde
must serve defendants with her motion and supporting papers. Jelde must also file with the
Court the appropriate affidavits of service attesting that those documents have been served on
defendants. Only after receiving those affidavits will the Court consider setting a briefing
schedule on Jelde’s motion.
In addition, the Court orders Jelde to show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. The statute authorizing judicial review of naturalization decisions only
allows a person “whose application for naturalization . . . is denied” to seek judicial review.
8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The statute thus implies that an applicant for naturalization may not seek
review of any decision of USCIS unless and until the agency denies her application. Jelde’s
application is still in process — USCIS has not yet made a decision — and thus it appears that
the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Perhaps for that reason, Jelde has not cited (and the
Court has not found) any case in which any court has granted the relief sought by Jelde — i.e., a
declaration that a request for evidence made by USCIS in the course of an ongoing administrative
naturalization proceeding is null and void.
Likewise, it appears that the Court lacks Article III jurisdiction over this case, as the
claims raised by Jelde do not appear to be ripe for adjudication. “Article III of the United States
Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.”
Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “‘A claim is not ripe for
adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed
may not occur at all.’” KCCP Trust v. City of North Kansas City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir.
2005) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)).
Jelde seeks a judicial ruling on an interim evidentiary order issued in the course of an
ongoing administrative proceeding. Almost certainly, such an order is not ripe for judicial
resolution. Cf. Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 728 F.3d 1229, 1234-36
(10th Cir. 2013) (declining appellate review of ongoing administrative decisionmaking process).
Jelde’s claims are quite clearly founded on a “contingent future event” — the denial of her
naturalization application because she did not comply with USCIS’s request for evidence. But
that contingency may never come to pass. USCIS might drop its request that Jelde provide
evidence that Edati is her father; or USCIS might agree to accept alternative evidence that
substantiates Jelde’s contention that Edati is her father; or USCIS might grant Jelde’s application
despite her failure to provide the requested evidence; or USCIS might deny Jelde’s application
for reasons that have nothing to do with Jelde’s failure to provide the requested evidence. Any
one of these scenarios would render this lawsuit moot.
Accordingly, Jelde is ordered to show cause by Friday, January 24, 2014 why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Failure to file a memorandum by that date will
result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated: January 17, 2014
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
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?