Graves et al v. Uscis

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

D.D.C.May 22, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DANA GRAVES, Pro se, ) ) and ) ) CHRISTOPHER IHEBEREME, Pro se, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-00262 (JEB) ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP and ) IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ) Virginia Office at DHS/CIS ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Defendant moves to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs have received the exact relief they seek in their Complaint. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction to provide them with relief under the Mandamus Act. Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 4 2 The Court should therefore dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Date: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY D.C. BAR NUMBER 415793 DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division /s/ RHONDA L. CAMPBELL, D.C. Bar No. 462402 Assistant United States Attorneys Civil Division 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2559 Rhonda.campbell@usdoj.gov Counsel for United States Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 4 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DANA GRAVES, Pro se, ) ) and ) ) CHRISTOPHER IHEBEREME, Pro se, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-00262 (JEB) ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP and ) IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ) Virginia Office at DHS/CIS ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Having reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject- Matter Jurisdiction, and good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ________________________________ United States District Judge Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of May 2017, the accompanying Motion was served on pro se Plaintiffs by electronic mail and mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: CHRISTOPHER IHEBEREME 5321 Jay Street NE Washington, D.C. 20019 DANA GRAVES 5321 Jay Street NE Washington, D.C. 20019 /s/ RHONDA L. CAMPBELL Assistant United States Attorney Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DANA GRAVES, Pro se, ) ) and ) ) CHRISTOPHER IHEBEREME, Pro se, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-00262 (JEB) ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP and ) IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ) Virginia Office at DHS/CIS ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendant, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) moves to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). In their Complaint, Christopher Ihebereme and Dana Graves (“Plaintiffs”) ask this Court to compel USCIS to act on their I-130 Petition, which allows a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States to establish the relationship to certain alien relatives, who wish to immigrate to the United States. See www.uscis.gov/i-30. (Complaint (“Compl”) ECF No. 1). USCIS has already acted upon Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition. (See attached Approved Petition). Because Plaintiffs have now received the exact relief they sought, this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide them with relief under the Mandamus Act. The Court must therefore dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 6 2 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Plaintiff/Petitioner Dana Denise Graves, filed an I-130 Petition, on behalf of Plaintiff/Beneficiary Christopher Okwuchi Ihebereme, who is from Nigeria. The couple married on December 31, 2007 in Arlington, Virginia. Despite the characterizations in the complaint, both of the first two petitions (filed on February 19, 2008 and June 14, 2009, respectively) were withdrawn by Petitioner/Plaintiff Dana Graves. The first petition was withdrawn after Ms. Graves discovered some alarming information about Mr. Ihebereme. Ms. Graves withdrew the second petition after an interview with two USCIS officers, in which she signed a sworn statement admitting to marrying Mr. Ihebereme solely for immigration purposes. During the third petition interview (filed on October 1, 2014), Ms. Graves claimed to have been pressured into signing the statement and making the withdrawal of the second petition. Plaintiffs filed this action on February 9, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (See ECF No. 1). The complaint names USCIS as the defendant. (See Petition, generally). On April 25, 2017, USCIS approved the third petition, and USCIS has done exactly what Plaintiffs requested, and it is for this reason that this matter is now moot. STANDARD OF REVIEW I. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only possessing the power authorized by the Constitution and statutes. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 6 3 As the party invoking the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has the jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936); Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2002). II. The Mandamus Act Under the Mandamus Act, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A case becomes moot if the issues presented are “no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Los Angeles Cnty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (citation omitted). The mootness inquiry must be made at every stage of the litigation. Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 887 F. Supp. 2d 102, 2012 WL 3637162 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2012) (plaintiff must continue to establish standing throughout the course of the litigation because “ ‘[i]f the plaintiff loses standing ... during the pendency of the proceedings ..., the matter becomes moot, and the court loses jurisdiction.’ ” (quoting McNair v. Synapse Grp. Inc., 672 F.3d 213, 227 n. 17 (3d Cir. 2012)). Federal district courts have often dismissed as moot mandamus actions requesting adjudication of an I–130 petition or an I–485 application once the petition or application has been adjudicated. See, e.g., Mohammed v. Holder, 695 F. Supp.2d 284, 289–90 (E.D.Va. 2010); Iredia v. Fitzgerald, No. 10–228, 2010 WL 2994215, *3 (E.D.Pa. July 27, 2010); Brown v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No .2007–0065, 2008 WL 2329314, *1 (D.Vi. June 3, 2008); Ordonez–Garay v. Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 6 4 Chertoff, No. CV F 06–1835 AWI SMS, 2007 WL 2904226, *4 (E.D.Cal. Oct.3, 2007); Ariwodo v. Hudson, No. H–06–1907, 2006 WL 2729386, *3 (S.D.Tex. Sept.26, 2006); see also Akinmulero v. Holder, 347 Fed.Appx. 58, 60–61 (5th Cir.2009) (petition for writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate I–485 application was moot following administrative closure). ANALYSIS Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief from this Court (to which they are not entitled). Plaintiffs, pro se litigants, seek to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (ECF No. 1, p. 1). Complaints filed by pro se litigants, however, are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief specifically asks this Court to “[o]rder UCIS[sic] to make a decision on an 1-130 Petition For Alien Relative (EAC-15-900- 03427) . . . I filed for my husband on October 3rd 2014 and the interview done since February 13th 20015[sic] at the Fairfax office of USCIS.” (ECF No. 1, p. 2). The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, vests district courts with “original jurisdiction over any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Id. A party seeking mandamus relief has the burden of demonstrating “that its right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 (1967) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be utilized in the clearest and most compelling of cases. Kerr v. United States, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Fornaro v. Kay Coles James, 416 F.3d 63, 69 (D.C. Cir 2005). To obtain relief under the Mandamus Act, a party must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant has a plainly defined and nondiscretionary duty to do a ministerial act; (2) the plaintiff has a clear right to the relief he is seeking; and (3) the plaintiff has no available, adequate Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 6 5 remedy. See Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 121 (1988); In re Medicare Reimbursement Litig., 414 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Mandamus offers a remedy only where the government official or agency owes the plaintiff a “clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Here, this Court lacks jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief because Defendant has already performed all of its nondiscretionary duties pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1154(a) and (b), which governs procedures for adjudicating petitions. The only nondiscretionary duty owed to Plaintiffs under this statute was the duty to act upon Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition request. USCIS performed its duty under this statute, when on April 25, 2017, the agency approved Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition. (See Exhibit A). Defendant has therefore withheld no action, nor do they owe any further “clear and nondiscretionary” legal duties to Plaintiffs. Because the Form I–130 in this case was approved on April 25, 2017, the petition for a writ of mandamus is moot. USCIS has already adjudicated the I–130 and there are no pending petitions or applications before the agency. As the beneficiary of the petition is in removal proceedings before the immigration court, and has been charged as other than an arriving alien in the charging document initiating removal proceedings, it is that court that now has jurisdiction over any adjustment application, and not USCIS. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Because the petition is now moot, and therefore fails to present a justiciable case or controversy, Plaintiffs’ claim based on the Mandamus Act must be dismissed. CONCLUSION This Court thus lacks jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief. USCIS acted upon Plaintiffs’ application request on April 25, 2017, when it issued a Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 5 of 6 6 decision approving Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1154 (a) and (b). Because Plaintiffs have now received the exact relief they sought, this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide them with relief under the Mandamus Act. The Court must therefore dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Date: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY D.C. BAR NUMBER 415793 DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division /s/ RHONDA L. CAMPBELL, D.C. Bar No. 462402 Assistant United States Attorneys Civil Division 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2559 Rhonda.campbell@usdoj.gov Counsel for United States Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:17-cv-00262-JEB Document 12-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2