United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 22-5266 September Term, 2022 FILED ON: JUNE 16, 2023 BO LI, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-02331) Before: HENDERSON, MILLETT, and CHILDS, Circuit Judges. JUDGMENT This case was considered on the record and on the briefs of the parties. We have accorded the issues full consideration and have determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the appeal be DISMISSED. I In this case, 309 Chinese national plaintiffs claim that the State Department and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security (“Immigration Services”) have unlawfully withheld employment-based EB-5 visa numbers to which they are entitled due to allegedly unjustifiable administrative delays. Those visa applicants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on August 5, 2022, and shortly thereafter moved for a preliminary injunction. They argued that irreparable harm would befall them if visa numbers were not issued before the end of Fiscal Year 2022—that is, by September 30, 2022. The district court denied the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the applicants were 1 unlikely to succeed on the merits and had not demonstrated irreparable harm. The applicants appealed to this court and, while the appeal was pending, the district court granted them leave to file an amended complaint. That new complaint seeks injunctive relief from that court no later than September 30, 2023. II Because the applicants’ appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts must refrain from deciding a case if “events have so transpired that the decision will neither presently affect the parties’ rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future.” Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 897 F.2d 570, 575 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Because we have a continuing constitutional obligation to assure ourselves of our own jurisdiction, we must dismiss an appeal that was once live if it has become moot before we render a decision. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2018) (“A case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings is ‘no longer a “Case” or “Controversy” for purposes of Article III[.]’”) (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)). Parties seeking the exceptional relief of a preliminary injunction must demonstrate, among other things, that they will suffer irreparable harm—which is harm that cannot be remediated if the court waits until the end of litigation. See Archdiocese of Wash. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897 F.3d 314, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (listing the four factors to obtain preliminary relief as “likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in [the moving party’s] favor, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals