Yang v. Mayorkas et al
Filing
19
ORDER: For the reasons explained in the attached memorandum and order, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 10/23/2024. (BRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------x
ZHAODAN YANG,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
23-CV-7756 (RPK)
v.
ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS; UR M.
JADDOU, USCIS Director; LOREN K.
MILLER, USCIS NSC Director;
CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY; MERRICK B.
GARLAND,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------x
RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Zhaodan Yang filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling defendant
USCIS to issue a decision on plaintiff’s Form I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful
Presence Waiver. For the reasons explained below, this case is dismissed as moot.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from plaintiff’s operative complaint and are assumed true for
the purpose of this order.
In September 2021, Plaintiff filed a Form I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful
Presence Waiver, which was predicated on the approval of a prior Form I-130 Petition for Alien
Relative regarding plaintiff. Compl. ¶¶ 14–15 (Dkt. #5). * At the time plaintiff filed this lawsuit
Plaintiff filed two substantially similar complaints, both dated October 18, 2024. See Compl. (Dkt. #1); Compl.
(Dkt. #5). The Court considers the latter to be the operative complaint because it was filed while plaintiff retained the
right to amend plaintiff’s pleadings “once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). All citations to
plaintiff’s complaint refer to the operative complaint.
*
1
over two years later, the application remained pending at the USCIS Nebraska Service Center
despite plaintiff’s “numerous status inquiries with USCIS.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.
In October 2023, Plaintiff filed this action under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361,
Section 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1329, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501, et seq., against the following defendants: Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas; Director of United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Ur M. Jaddou; Director of USCIS Nebraska Service Center
(“NSC”) Loren K. Miller; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher A. Wray;
and United States Attorney General Merrick Garland. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff’s complaint requests that
the Court compel defendant USCIS to issue a decision on plaintiff’s Form I-601A application. Id.
¶¶ 1, 23–28.
Defendants initially moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. #12), and later submitted
a letter arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim, Defs.’ Aug.
12, 2024 Ltr. (Dkt. #16).
After defendants filed their motion to dismiss, USCIS issued a decision denying plaintiff’s
Form I-601A application. See Defs.’ Sept. 9, 2024 Ltr., Ex. A (Dkt. #18). Defendants accordingly
submitted that the case was moot. Defs.’ Sept. 9, 2024 Ltr. 1–3.
Plaintiff opposed defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Opp’n (Dkt. #11), but has not
responded to defendant’s submission that the case is moot. See Sept. 4, 2024 Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint
for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
2
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power
to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). When considering
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court takes as true the factual allegations in the
complaint but does not draw inferences favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction. See J.S. ex
rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004). The court may also look beyond
the complaint to such things as affidavits or other documents. See Kamen v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
791 F.2d 1006, 1011 (2d Cir. 1986).
DISCUSSION
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s lawsuit because it is moot.
The judicial power of federal courts is limited to the adjudication of “Cases” and
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Consequently, “at all times, the dispute before the court
must be real and live, not feigned, academic, or conjectural.” Russman v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of the City of Watervliet, 260 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2001). Where the
plaintiff will have obtained the requested relief “regardless of any decision [the court] might reach
on the merits of th[e] litigation, . . . the [court] cannot, consistently with the limitations of Art. III
of the Constitution, consider the substantive . . . issues tendered by the parties.” DeFunis v.
Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 319–20 (1974) (per curiam).
Accordingly, “[w]hen a plaintiff asks a court to compel a federal official to act, and the
federal official has already performed that act, the claim is moot, and, therefore, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.” Mahon v. Johnson, 321 F. Supp. 3d 320, 323 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing
Barrett v. United States, 105 F.3d 793, 794 (2d Cir. 1996)). Consistent with this rule, courts
routinely find mandamus actions moot when the government denies the application that the
petitioner sought to be adjudicated. See Kuai Le Chen v. Nielson, 365 F. Supp. 3d 292, 295
3
(E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Le Chen seeks to compel USCIS to take action on his I-495 Application and I730 Petitions. However, USCIS already did this in January 2018, when it administratively closed
the I-495 Application and denied the I-730 Petitions. Accordingly, Le Chen’s claims are moot.”);
Ji Hye Song v. Sessions, No. 17-CV-1682 (NGG), 2018 WL 5084823, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18,
2018) (“While Plaintiff may not have received the outcome she desired from USCIS, there can be
no mistaking that she received from USCIS what she sought to compel the agency to give her—
an adjudication of her I-485 Application.”); see also, e.g., Sadiku v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
No. 20-CV-3241 (RPK), 2022 WL 173109, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022); Uddin v. U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., No. 20-CV-566 (WFK), 2021 WL 2701695, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2021);
Pillai v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-1008 (EAW), 2019 WL 13217733, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 3, 2019);
Feng Lin v. Holder, No. 12-CV-4245 (NGG), 2013 WL 3967296, at *2–3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1,
2013).
Plaintiff requested that this Court compel defendant USCIS to issue a decision on plaintiff’s
Form I-601A application. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 23–28. Because USCIS has done just that in denying the
application, Defs.’ Sept. 9, 2024 Ltr., Ex. A, plaintiff’s request for relief is moot.
CONCLUSION
This case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk
of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Rachel Kovner
RACHEL P. KOVNER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 23, 2024
Brooklyn, New York
4
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?