Opinion
21-CV-05887(EK)
2022-04-11
Yasen MENG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.
Yasen Meng, Flushing, NY, Pro Se. Kevin Yim, DOJ-USAO, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
Yasen Meng, Flushing, NY, Pro Se.
Kevin Yim, DOJ-USAO, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
In April 2019, Plaintiff Yasen Meng filed an application on Form I-485 for permanent residency or adjustment of status. After the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") took no action for approximately two-and-a-half years, Meng filed this suit in October 2021, seeking to compel the agency to adjudicate the application. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Approximately six weeks after Meng filed the complaint, USCIS initiated adjudication of the application by furnishing Meng a request for evidence. See Def. Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 7. USCIS then moved to dismiss the case as moot. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to that motion, nor responded to my order to submit a letter clarifying the status of Meng's legal representation. See Order of January 18, 2022. Because USCIS has acted in response to Plaintiff's I-485 application, this action is dismissed as moot.
I. Background
Plaintiff's form complaint asks the Court to "please provide the mandamus to the USCIS about my I-485 case." Compl. 6. Plaintiff claims that apart from USCIS's acknowledgment of receipt of Meng's application (which came two days after Plaintiff filed it), no further action has been taken. The Court interprets this as a claim of unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act and a petition for a writ of mandamus. The issue here is whether USCIS's November 2021 request for evidence moots the complaint.
II. Discussion
The doctrine of mootness is "based upon the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution." Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of the State Univ. of New York , 42 F.3d 135, 140 n.2 (2d Cir. 1994). Once a case is moot, "federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction" over it. Id. at 140. "The hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed." Martin–Trigona v. Shiff , 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983). In the instant context, an "agency's refusal to act" on an application for adjustment of status is a "prerequisite for the existence of a case or controversy." Meixian Ye v. Kelly , No. 17-CV-3010, 2017 WL 2804932, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017).
Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order omits all alterations, citations, footnotes, and internal quotation marks.
Here, the agency has acted on Plaintiff's application by issuing a request for evidence. See Markandu v. Thompson , No. 07-CV-4538, 2008 WL 11510675, at *3 (D.N.J. June 11, 2008) (citing cases for the proposition that an application to compel agency action in the immigration context becomes moot "once the agency begins to spin its bureaucratic cogs toward decision"). As USCIS observes, the request for evidence puts "the next step in the adjudication [ ] entirely in Plaintiff's hands, not those of USCIS." Def. Mot. to Dismiss 1.
I agree. "[A] decision on the application itself is not necessary to deprive the Court of jurisdiction on mootness grounds." Yusupov v. Mayorkas , No. 21-CV-4066, 2021 WL 6105720, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2021) (dismissing case on mootness grounds where decision had not issued but USCIS had requested interview); see also Lin v. Johnson , No. 19-CV-2878, 2019 WL 3409486, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2019) (dismissing, on mootness grounds, suit that sought to compel USCIS adjudication of immigration petition because agency requested additional evidence). By issuing Plaintiff the request for evidence, the agency has initiated action.
This dismissal is without prejudice to further action in the case of future delay that might satisfy the applicable jurisdictional requirements. Meixian Ye, 2017 WL 2804932, at *2 ("If the time comes in the future where there is another delay that plaintiff believes is illegal, plaintiff will be free to commence another proceeding to challenge that delay.").
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.