In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-1237C (Filed: March 25, 2022)* *Opinion originally filed under seal on March 16, 2022 ) TEJA RAVI, ) ) Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(1); Plaintiff, ) Sovereign Capacity Doctrine; RCFC ) 56(d); RCFC 15; Futility v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Amy E. Norris, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Meen Geu Oh, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, and Eric P. Bruskin, Assistant Director, for defendant. OPINION FIRESTONE, Senior Judge. Between 2018 and 2019, plaintiff Teja Ravi, 1 a citizen of India, enrolled at and made tuition payments to the University of Farmington. At the time of his enrollment, Mr. Ravi did not know that the University of Farmington was a fictitious school staffed and operated by agents from United States Immigration and Customs and Enforcement 1 Mr. Ravi’s legal name is Ravi Teja Tiyagurra. Def.’s Supp. Br. at 1 n.1, ECF No. 24. However, the parties continue to refer to the plaintiff as Teja Ravi and, for consistency, so will the court. (ICE) as part of an undercover law enforcement operation whose purpose was to expose student visa fraud. In 2019, after ICE ceased operating Farmington and began pursuing enforcement actions, Mr. Ravi left the United States and returned to India. In this action, Mr. Ravi seeks the return of his tuition payments, alleging that the government breached a contract with him when it did not provide him legitimate educational services. Now pending before the court are the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Ravi’s amended complaint, or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, as well as Mr. Ravi’s requests for additional discovery and his motion to further amend his complaint. As discussed in more detail below, the court GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Ravi’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the sovereign capacity doctrine bars this court from hearing Mr. Ravi’s contract claims. The government’s alternative motion for summary judgment is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Mr. Ravi’s requests for further discovery are DENIED as futile, and Mr. Ravi’s motion to amend the complaint is also DENIED as futile. I. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The laws of the United States generally require foreign citizens to obtain a visa before entering the country. One type of visa the United States offers to foreign citizens is the F-1 nonimmigrant academic visa, sometimes called a student visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i). The F-1 visa allows “nonimmigrant students” to come to the United 2 States for a specified time period to pursue a “full course of study” 2 at an approved educational institution. See id. Students seeking an F-1 visa are subject to certain requirements. The students must apply and be accepted to a school certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Def.’s Supp. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals