UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAMS ABBAS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03192 (CJN) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Shams Abbas, a United States citizen residing in Massachusetts, married Danish Mehdi, an Indian citizen living in Saudi Arabia, in May 2019. Pl.’s Opp’n. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 2, ECF No. 8. The next month Abbas filed with the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative (“Form I-130”) on Mehdi’s behalf. Compl., ECF No. 1, at 5. That form remained pending before the agency for seventeen months. Id. When Abbas inquired about its status, USCIS informed her that Mehdi’s security clearance was pending. Id. In November 2020, having still not received a decision, Abbas filed this suit alleging counts of unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act and a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See generally Compl. Her suit sought a writ of mandamus compelling the government to adjudicate both her I-130 Petition as well as Mehdi’s immigrant visa application. Id. at 9. USCIS finally approved Abbas’s Form I-130 on December 4, 2020. Defs.’ Mot. at 1. Between December 4, 2020 and January 12, 2021, Abbas’s case was transferred from USCIS to the National Visa Center (“NVC”), the U.S. State Department division responsible for visa 1 adjudication, for processing. Id. at 2. On January 12, 2021, the NVC notified Mehdi to pay certain fees and submit the required documents in furtherance of his visa application, which he did on February 3, 2021. Pl.’s Opp’n at 4. On January 12, 2021, the same day the NVC requested that Mehdi submit his visa application materials, the government moved to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Defs.’ Mot. at 1. The government argues that Abbas’s claims are non-justiciable because her claims relating to her I-130 are moot and her claims regarding Mehdi’s visa presented a non-cognizable injury at the time of filing. Compl. 5–6.1 To satisfy the requirements of Article III standing in a case challenging government action, a party must allege an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged government action, and “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). A plaintiff must have standing for every claim raised, see DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352–53 (2006), and standing on each claim is determined at the time the plaintiff files her complaint, Barker v. Conroy, 921 F.3d 1118, 1125 (D.C. Cir 2019). If during the litigation a claim is resolved such that there is no longer a “live” dispute between the parties that claim is moot, and the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the claim because there no longer exists an Article III case or controversy. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 1 Federal courts are, of course, courts …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals