Ying Lin v. Christopher Heffron

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1380 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1380 YING LIN; YI LIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHRISTOPHER M. HEFFRON, Field Office Director for the Charlotte Field Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States; ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; UR M. JADDOU, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00647-MOC-DCK) Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: January 27, 2023 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Bruno J. Bembi, LAW OFFICE OF BRUNO J. BEMBI, Hempstead, New York, for Appellants. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1380 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ying Lin and Yi Lin appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint challenging the Defendants’ decision denying Ying Lin derivative asylee status under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 855 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2017). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate “if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon our review, we conclude that the district court properly found that it was without jurisdiction to consider the agency’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 22-1380 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ca4 4th Cir. Ying Lin v. Christopher Heffron 27 January 2023 Unpublished 907d3a661c6a824e2af52e980db57ae96329926e

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals