Samina Hashmi, et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of Virginia granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss a pro se action seeking to compel adjudication of the plaintiffs’ adjustment-of-status applications. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because, after they were placed in removal proceedings, jurisdiction to adjudicate the applications rested exclusively with the immigration court rather than USCIS, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs lacked standing because the requested relief was not redressable by the court: after Plaintiffs were placed in removal proceedings, USCIS no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate their adjustment-of-status applications.
2. A non-attorney plaintiff may not represent a spouse or minor children pro se in federal court; claims asserted on behalf of those individuals were dismissed.
3. The court did not decide the mootness issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate their adjustment-of-status applications when Plaintiffs had been placed in removal proceedings and the immigration judge had exclusive jurisdiction over those applications.
2. Whether claims asserted pro se on behalf of a spouse and minor children could proceed when the complaint was signed only by a non-attorney parent.
3. Whether the court needed to reach Defendants' mootness argument.

Disposition

dismissed