Lozano Rodriguez v. Jaddou et al

Filing 8

ORDER: The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. # 6 ). Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SS)

Case 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ Document 8 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 5

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MANUEL LOZANO RODRIGUEZ,

No. 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ

Plaintiffs,

v.

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

17
18

I.

19
20

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to

21

dismiss the complaint as moot. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff did not oppose or respond to the

22

motion. Neither party has requested oral argument and this motion may be decided

23

without it. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

24
II. BACKGROUND

25
26

Plaintiff Manuel Lozano Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant complaint in

27

August 2022. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico and has been a permanent resident

28

ORDER – 1

Case 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ Document 8 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 5

1

of the United States since April 2017. Dkt. # 1, ¶¶ 1, 2. At some point, Plaintiff filed a N-

2

400 naturalization application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration

3

Service (“USCIS”), and USCIS acknowledged receipt of the application on January 14,

4

2021. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff appeared at the Seattle USCIS field office

5

for an interview concerning his naturalization application. Id. at ¶ 6. However, a USCIS

6

representative told Plaintiff that his file had been misplaced and that the agency would

7

contact Plaintiff to reschedule his interview in 3 to 4 weeks. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8. On June 28,

8

2022 Plaintiff communicated to USCIS, via counsel, that he would take legal action if an

9

interview was not scheduled by July 15, 2022. Dkt. # 1-4. At the time of Plaintiff’s filing,

10

in August 2022, over 565 days had elapsed since he filed his naturalization application.

11

Dkt. # 1, ¶ 12.

12

Plaintiff brought suit against USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act

13

(APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; the Immigration and

14

Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3); the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

15

U.S.C. § 2201; and the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.

16

Plaintiff sought a declaration that Defendants’ acts and omissions violated the INA, APA,

17

and Fifth Amendment; a writ of mandamus requiring that USCIS adjudicate Plaintiff’s N-

18

400 application within 30 days; and a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring

19

USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s N-400 application within 30 days. Dkt. # 1. On

20

November 10, 2022, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s N-400 application for naturalization in a

21

written decision, and a copy of the decision was e-mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on that

22

same date. Dkt. # 7, Ex. A (Copy of USCIS Decision). After a meet and confer with

23

Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants moved to dismiss the pending action as moot. Dkt. ## 6, 7

24

at ¶ 5.

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2

Case 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ Document 8 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 5

1

III. DISCUSSION

2

Federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases

3

authorized by the Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

4

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction

5

rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it is determined that a

6

federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the

7

suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the

8

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

9

dismiss the action.”).

10

A challenge brought under Rule 12(b)(1) may be facial, where the inquiry

11

concerns the allegations made in the complaint; or factual, where the court may look

12

beyond the complaint to extrinsic evidence. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th

13

Cir. 2004); see also McCarthy v. U.S., 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Moreover,

14

when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the district court is not

15

restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits

16

and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.”).

17

Consequently, the Court may consider USCIS’s November 10, 2022 denial of Plaintiff’s

18

naturalization application.

19

To have standing to bring a claim in federal court, Plaintiff must show that he has

20

“suffered an injury in fact, traceable to the challenged action, and likely to be redressed

21

by a favorable decision.” Nome Eskimo Community v. Babbitt, 67 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.

22

1995). If a “required prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power disappears while the

23

litigation is pending,” then, in the absence of an exception, “the judicial branch loses its

24

power to render a decision on the merits of the claim.” Id. “In general, when an

25

administrative agency has performed the action sought by a plaintiff in litigation, a

26

federal court ‘lacks the ability to grant effective relief,’ and the claim is moot.” Rosemere

27

Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009)

28

ORDER – 3

Case 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ Document 8 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 5

1

(quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1996)). Such is the

2

case here.
In this case, Plaintiff sought an order to compel USCIS to adjudicate his

3
4

naturalization application within 30 days. Dkt. # 1. On November 10, 2022, USCIS

5

adjudicated Plaintiff’s application. “The relief sought in Plaintiff’s [complaint], namely

6

an order to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application[], therefore, can no longer

7

provide plaintiff with any benefit because the application[] [has] been adjudicated by

8

USCIS.” Kaddoura v. Gonzales, Case No. C06-1402RSL, 2007 WL 1521218, at *2

9

(W.D. Wash. May 21, 2007) (dismissing request for injunction to compel USCIS to

10

adjudicate applications for adjustment of status and employment authorization because

11

USCIS already performed the requested actions).
Plaintiff’s claim that USCIS’s “acts and omissions”— misplacing Plaintiff’s

12
13

application and delaying his interview— violate the INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment

14

likewise “no longer presents an opportunity for this court to grant meaningful relief.”

15

Sandhu v. Napolitano, Case No. C09-07774JLR, 2009 WL 10723368, at *3 (W.D. Wash.

16

Nov. 27, 2009). Like the plaintiff in Sandhu, Plaintiff here “seeks relief only with respect

17

to … applications that he has already filed and that have already been adjudicated by

18

[USCIS].” Id. Similarly, Plaintiff’s request for mandamus action is subject to mootness.

19

See Kaddoura, 2007 WL 1521218, at *2 (“Here, the notices of decision from USCIS

20

show that the plaintiff has been granted the relief requested in his petition for writ of

21

mandamus. Accordingly, the issues presented to this Court are no longer ‘live’ and the

22

Court dismisses plaintiff’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (internal

23

citation omitted).

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

ORDER – 4

Case 2:22-cv-01090-RAJ Document 8 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 5

IV. CONCLUSION

1
2

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to

3

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed

4

without prejudice.

5
6

DATED this 18th day of January, 2023.

A

7
8

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 5