Summary
This United States District Court order grants the defendants' motion to dismiss a pro se complaint challenging delays in USCIS processing of immigrant visa petitions. The court finds the action moot because the underlying petitions were subsequently approved, thereby depriving the plaintiff of a live controversy. Additionally, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, ruling that he lacks Article III standing to compel the admission of his family members. The case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over a mandamus action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Whether plaintiff has standing to sue to compel USCIS processing of the petitions.
- Whether the case is moot because the petitions have been approved.
- Whether the court may retain jurisdiction and allow amendment of the complaint.
Holdings
- The court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction; the motion to dismiss is granted.
- Plaintiff lacks standing because he has no cognizable injury; the motion to retain jurisdiction is denied.
- The case is moot; the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
- The court declines to retain jurisdiction and denies the motion to amend.
Factual background
Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, filed I‑130 petitions for his wife (a Canadian permanent resident) and daughter, which remained pending for nearly a year. The petitions were approved before the plaintiff’s motion to retain jurisdiction was filed. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to compel USCIS to process the petitions.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se mandamus action on October 15, 2024 seeking expedited processing of I‑130 petitions for his wife and daughter. Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff responded with motions to retain jurisdiction and to amend the complaint.