UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHILPI MUKHERJEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 20-cv-676 (CRC) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs are fifty-three individuals who have applied to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to extend their nonimmigrant statuses and/or work authorizations. They claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their applications and that the delay constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 270–305 (Causes of Action). Last month, in a case brought by a group of plaintiffs asserting identical claims, this Court denied as moot the claims of those plaintiffs whose applications had been adjudicated during the pendency of the lawsuit and then transferred the claims of the remaining plaintiffs to the judicial districts where the USCIS service centers that were adjudicating their individual applications are located. See Pasem v. USCIS, No. 20-cv-344, 2020 WL 2514749 (D.D.C. May 15, 2020) (CRC). The plaintiffs in this case offer no reason to deviate from that tack. The Court will therefore transfer the seven live claims to the more appropriate judicial district. I. Background In Pasem, the Court fully laid out the statutory and procedural history relevant to this case. See id. at *1–2. Briefly, plaintiffs are dependents of people who have been granted nonimmigrant visas and work authorizations for either being an employee in a “specialty occupation” (H1-B visa) or a manager, executive, or employee with specialized knowledge (L-1 visa). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1101(a)(15)(L). As dependents of the primary visa holders, plaintiffs may apply for derivative nonimmigrant status and work authorization. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), 1101(a)(15)(L), 1184(c)(2)(E); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv) (Jan. 1, 2020). Prior to March 2019, derivative applications “were adjudicated as a single package alongside the primary H1-B or L-1 applications.” Pasem, 2020 WL 2514749, at *2. But now, USCIS requires derivative applicants to provide biometric information for screening, which “has predictably extended the amount of time it takes USCIS to adjudicate the applications and has prevented USCIS from continuing to consider the derivative visas concurrently with the primary applications.” Id. The resulting delays, plaintiffs claim, are arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs do not challenge the legality of the biometrics policy itself; instead, they simply challenge “the Agency’s (in)action due to” that policy, among other factors that may result in delays in USCIS’s review of their applications. Pls.’ Opp. 17. II. Mootness Before transferring any claims, the Court will again dismiss as moot the claims of those plaintiffs whose applications have been adjudicated since this suit was filed. As the Court explained in Pasem: When warranted, courts in this district routinely dismiss individual claims prior to transferring a case. [citing cases] . . . Claims that have become moot must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 757 F.3d 300, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In deciding whether a claim has become moot, a court may “consider such materials ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals