Benitez Bautista et al v. Cuccinelli et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 41 MOTION Reinstate case on active docket filed by Valeria Benitez Bautista, et al is Denied and the Court ORDERS the parties to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 9/16/2022) (svc)

Case 3:20-cv-02348-B Document 49 Filed 09/16/22

Page 1 of 3 PageID 793

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
VALERIA BENITEZ BAUTISTA,
GUILLERO GABRIEL NIETO, and
JAIME ANTONIO FRIAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity
as Director of US Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and US
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-2348-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before this Court is Plaintiffs Valeria Benitez Bautista, Guillero Gabriel Nieto, and Jaime
Antonio Frias (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s Motion in Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 41),
and Defendants Ur. M. Jaddou and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
(collectively, “Defendants”)’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 43). For the reasons below, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
hear Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion and ORDERS the parties
to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiffs filed this Motion in Response to Order to Show Cause (the “Motion”) and moved
to reinstate the case on August 8, 2022. See Doc. 41, Mot. 1. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed
to comply with the terms of the Compromise Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”)
by failing to follow internal operating policies and procedures while adjudicating Plaintiffs’
-1-

Case 3:20-cv-02348-B Document 49 Filed 09/16/22

Page 2 of 3 PageID 794

applications to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status (“the Applications”). Id. at 3. According
to Plaintiffs, this failure renders Defendants’ decision invalid and cannot constitute a final
adjudication of the Applications. Id. at 3–4. Thus, Plaintiffs maintain that this case is ripe for review.
Id. at 6. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the breach of settlement agreement claim, and that such claim should be brought “in a
separate lawsuit under the APA” or as a claim for “breach of the settlement contract in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims.” Doc. 43, Resp. 2–3.
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to actual “Cases” and
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Where a court lacks the constitutional power to adjudicate
a case, it must dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v.
City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). A moot claim “presents no Article III case or
controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.” Goldin
v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 717 (5th Cir. 1999). “A case becomes moot only when it is impossible
for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l
Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Defendants’ adjudication of the Applications moots the Court’s ability to grant any
relief sought in Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint. The Court now lacks a live case or controversy and
thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. See Gorfinkel v. United States Citizenship
& Immigr. Serv., 2021 WL 1009319, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021), report and recommendation
adopted, 2021 WL 977064 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2021) (“The relief [the plaintiff] sought has been
provided, and his claims have therefore been rendered moot.”); Ghosheh v. Tarango, 2016 WL

-2-

Case 3:20-cv-02348-B Document 49 Filed 09/16/22

Page 3 of 3 PageID 795

3763421, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2016) (finding the petition for writ of mandamus moot where
the petitioners sought to compel USCIS to issue a decision on their immigration applications and
USCIS issued those decisions after the lawsuit was filed). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’
Motion to Reopen and ORDERS the parties to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: September 16, 2022.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-