No. 21-2330C (Filed: February 1, 2022) ************************** MIN JEONG KIM, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ************************** ORDER Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed her complaint on December 27, 2021. Plaintiff’s complaint states that she is “requesting USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] to take responsibility for my case.” Compl. at 2. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Plaintiff filed her response on January 27, 2022. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons given below, we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Under RCFC 12(b)(1), “a court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff's complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Once determining it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, however, the court must dismiss the action. We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint references a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) case number and asks “USCIS to take responsib[ility] for my case.” Compl. at 2. No other details are provided. The only statement addressing jurisdiction is that “USCIS is a governmental agency.” 1 Id. at 1. The complaint fails to allege any claim for damages, a requirement to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.”). Even pro se plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has failed to meet this threshold. Thus, dismissal is appropriate. CONCLUSION Because we conclude that plaintiff’s complaint is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for defendant. No costs. s/Eric G. Bruggink ERIC G. BRUGGINK Senior Judge 1 Plaintiff’s response to the government’s motion to dismiss does not furnish an additional statement addressing jurisdiction. 21-2330 United States Court of Federal Claims uscfc Fed. Cl. Kim v. United States 1 February 2022 UNREPORTED OPINION granting Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (hem) Service on parties made. Unpublished fea5575377e6f603121eb3053d1a1c9abd86b52b
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals