FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OBAYDUL HOQUE BHUIYAN, No. 17-16714 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00013 v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 10, 2019 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Obaydul Hoque Bhuiyan, a citizen of Bangladesh, appeals the dismissal of his Federal Tort Claims Act and declaratory judgment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, so we need not recount those here. We review de novo an order dismissing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1028 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016). We resolve a facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction by “[a]ccepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). The non-moving party “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence” that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 1. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Bhuiyan’s FTCA claim because Bhuiyan failed to identify similar circumstances giving rise to liability under state tort law. The FTCA waives the government’s sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” Terbush v. United States, 516 F.3d 1125, 1128–29 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)). The government argues that Vermont law applies; Bhuiyan contends that the law of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”) applies. We need not decide which law applies, because Bhuiyan failed to demonstrate that either CNMI or Vermont law would hold a 2 private actor liable in any similar situation. Bhuiyan relies on Vermont law involving general negligence principles, and a CNMI case involving an employer’s responsibility to submit documents to the government. Rokibul v. Philpan Int’l Corp., NMI Super. Ct. Civ. No. 07-0175 (August 11, 2009). None of the cases are sufficiently analogous. Bhuiyan cites to out-of-jurisdiction authority, but reliance on out-of-jurisdiction cases does not suffice, per the plain language of the statute. Further—as the district court noted—there is, as a general matter, no private analogue to governmental withdrawal of immigration benefits. 2. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Bhuiyan’s declaratory judgment action because Bhuiyan’s complaint did not articulate a sufficiently certain injury in fact. In the context of a declaratory judgment, “‘threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact’ . . . ‘[a]llegations ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals