UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) MD ZAHIDUZ ZAMAN, ) a U.S. Citizen, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-3592 (ABJ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 29, 2019, Md Zahiduz Zaman, an American citizen, filed a complaint seeking to compel defendants – the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); the United States Department of State (“DOS”); the United States “Consulate” in Dhaka, Bangladesh; Secretary of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas; Director of USCIS, Ur Mendoza Jaddou; Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken; and the United States Ambassador to Bangladesh, Earl Miller 1 – to adjudicate the immigration visas he filed on behalf of his mother, Zahanara Habib, and his father, Md Habibur Rahman. 2 Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 1–12; Compl., Req. for Relief ¶¶ 1–10. The complaint includes two causes of action: Count One alleges that the decisions on the visa applications have been unreasonably delayed in 1 Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Antony J. Blinken are substituted automatically as defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 2 Plaintiff initially included claims relating to a visa application for his spouse, Mst Fatema Tuj-Juhura Tonny, Compl. ¶¶ 16–23, whose visa has since been issued. See Decl. of Evangeline Howard (“Howard Decl.”) [Dkt. # 14-1] ¶ 5. contravention of law, and Count Two alleges that the failure to act violates plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Compl. ¶¶ 41–44, 52–59. Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering either the issuance of the immigrant visas or ordering defendants to complete all administrative proceedings within sixty days. Compl., Req. for Relief ¶¶ 5, 7. He also asks that the Court order defendants to explain the cause and nature of the delay and inform plaintiff of any action he may take to “accelerate processing of the visa application[s].” Compl., Req. for Relief ¶ 8. 3 Finally, plaintiff asks the Court to assume jurisdiction of this matter and to adjudicate the immigration visa petitions itself under its declaratory judgment authority. Compl. ¶ 6. The prayer for relief also seeks attorneys’ fees and other costs. Compl. ¶ 9. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 14] (“Mot.”) at 1. For the reasons set forth below and after review of the entire record, 4 the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss. 3 Plaintiff’s Request for Relief also calls for a declaration concerning the legality of a DHS policy known as the “Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program” (“CARRP”). Compl., Req. for Relief ¶¶ 2–4. While there are allegations in Count One that the policy contributed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals