Ghosheh et al v. Tarango et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Respondents' 22 Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 7/14/2016) (twd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RIAD GHOSHEH, ET AL.,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
VS.
)
)
)
TRACY TARANGO, in her official
capacity as District Director of the Dallas )
Field Office of the Bureau of Citizenship )
)
and Immigration Service, ET AL.,
)
)
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:16-CV-0224-G
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the respondents’ motion (with memorandum brief) to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandamus as moot (docket entry 22). For
the reasons stated below, the respondents’ motion is granted.
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 27, 2016, Riad Ghosheh and Badirah Farrah (the “petitioners”)
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to compel the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to render decisions on their
applications for permanent resident status, Forms I-485. See Petition for the Writ of
Mandamus (“Petition”) ¶ 17 (docket entry 1).
On March 22, 2016, the respondents interviewed the petitioners on their
applications to register permanent resident status. See Motion to Dismiss Petition as
Moot with Memorandum Brief (“Motion”) at 1 (docket entry 22). On April 6, 2016,
the respondents issued each of the petitioners a notice of intent to deny their
application, to which each of the petitioners responded. Id. On June 8, 2016, USCIS
denied both of the petitioners’ I-485 applications. Id.
On June 9, 2016, the respondents filed the instant motion to dismiss the
petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot. The petitioners did not file a
timely response. Thus, the motion is now ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only
“actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193,
199 (1988); Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 2004). “[A]n actual
controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)
(internal citations omitted). “If a dispute has been resolved or if it has evanesced
because of changed circumstances, . . . it is considered moot.” American Medical
Association v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988). Where the question of
-2-
mootness arises, the court must resolve it before it can assume jurisdiction. North
Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). If a controversy is moot, the trial court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Carr v. Saucier, 582 F.2d 14, 15-16 (5th Cir. 1978).
The respondents contend that they adjudicated the petitioners’ I-485
applications for permanent resident status. Motion at 1. The petitioners do not
contest this fact. The only relief the petitioners sought in their petition for writ of
mandamus was mandatory injunctive relief compelling the respondents to render
decisions on their I-485 applications for permanent resident status. See Petition ¶ 17.
The respondents adjudicated their applications. Therefore, the petition is moot. As a
result, there is no case or controversy for the court to resolve, there is no further
substantive relief the court can grant, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Carr, 582 F.2d at 15-16.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the respondents’ motion to dismiss the
petitioners’ petition for writ of mandamus is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered
dismissing the petitioners’ petition as moot.
SO ORDERED.
July 14, 2016.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
-3-
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?