FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONG KONG ENTERTAINMENT No. 17-17473 (OVERSEAS) INVESTMENT, LTD., DBA Tinian Dynasty Hotel and Casino, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00009 Petitioner-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, in his official capacity of Director, United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands Ramona V. Manglona, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 11, 2019** Honolulu, Hawaii * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Hong Kong Entertainment (Overseas) Investment, Ltd. (“HKE”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing its suit against the United States Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and related officials for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. HKE filed a petition for judicial review in district court after USCIS denied 151 CW-1 visa applications which would have allowed HKE to employ foreign workers at a casino in the Northern Mariana Islands. It asked the court to remand the applications to USCIS with instructions to approve them and for a declaratory judgment that HKE is a “legitimate employer.” Because these claims are not justiciable, we affirm dismissal. For a plaintiff’s claim to be justiciable, it “must have standing to bring the claim, and the claim must not be moot.” Jacobs v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419, 425 (9th Cir. 2008). To establish standing, a plaintiff must show “(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157–58 (2014) (citation, alterations, and punctuation omitted). A case is moot if there is no 2 “present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). HKE’s request that we instruct USCIS to approve the visa applications is not justiciable because we may grant it no effective relief. A CW-1 visa applicant must specify the dates for which the visa, if approved, would be effective. None of the visas HKE applied for would have been in effect beyond November 7, 2015, and HKE has not submitted any further visa applications. It has not requested that any alien be permitted to work in the United States for any present or future period. Further, we take judicial notice of HKE’s statement to the district court in another matter that it ceased business operations in the Northern Mariana Islands in March 2016. It follows that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals