UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FELIPE MARTINS GUIMARAES BROMFMAN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-cv-571 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Felipe Martins Guimaraes Bromfman, a citizen of Brazil who wishes to immigrate to the United States with his wife and daughter, seeks to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and the acting chief of USCIS’s Immigrant Investor Program Office to adjudicate his I-526 petition, which has been pending without decision for less than two years. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 25, ECF No. 1. An I-526 petition is “the mechanism by which individuals who are eligible to immigrate to the United States through the fifth employment- based visa preference category (commonly known as ‘EB-5’) obtain recognition from the government that they have satisfied the investment and job-creation requirements of that visa- preference category.” Id. ¶ 2. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for lack of jurisdiction, Defs.’ Mem. Pts. & Auth. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 5-1, and for failure to allege a plausible claim “that the alleged delay [p]laintiff has encountered constitutes an unreasonable or extraordinary delay that is actionable under the Mandamus Act, the [Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)], or the Declaratory Judgement Act,” id. at 1–2. Defendants also move to dismiss the complaint as moot because Congress failed to renew the statutory authorization for the EB-5 1 program through which plaintiff seeks to have his I-526 petition adjudicated. Defs.’ Supp. Br. at 2, ECF No. 9. Plaintiff disputes that his complaint is moot because USCIS potentially could decide plaintiff’s petition under a different framework, Pl.’s Supp. Mem. Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Pl.’s Supp. Mem.”) at 4 n.1, ECF No. 10, and further contests defendants’ motion to dismiss, see generally, Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 6. Alternatively, plaintiff requests that this case be stayed to give Congress time to reauthorize the Regional Center Program. Pl.’s Supp. Mem. at 1. For the reasons set forth below, this complaint is dismissed as moot. I. BACKGROUND Following brief review of the statutory and regulatory background, the factual history underlying the claims and procedural history of this case are summarized below. A. Statutory and Regulatory Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., authorizes the issuance of visas to different categories of immigrants, including, under the so-called “EB-5” program, to immigrants who contribute to “employment creation” by investing in new commercial enterprises that create full-time jobs for American workers, Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 121(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 4989 (Nov. 29, 1990) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)); see 8 C.F.R. § 204.6 (2020) (defining the requirements and process for EB-5 “alien entrepreneur” classification). To qualify for a visa under the EB-5 program, an immigrant must “create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals