Tony N. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TONY N., et al., Case No. 21-cv-08742-MMC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 10 U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed January 21, 2022. 14 Plaintiffs have filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. Having read and 15 considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court 16 deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective written submissions, 17 VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 11, 2022, and rules as follows. 18 On November 10, 2021, plaintiffs, five individuals who have applied for asylum, 19 filed the above-titled action, alleging defendant United States Citizenship & Immigration 20 Services ("USCIS") failed to timely rule on their applications for renewal of work permits. 21 In particular, plaintiffs allege, it is unreasonable for USCIS to fail to issue a ruling "within 22 the 180-day automatic extension period." (See Compl. ¶ 116; see also Compl., Req. for 23 Relief ¶ (5).)1 As relief, plaintiffs seek both a declaration that the delay in issuing a ruling 24 is unreasonable and an order compelling USCIS to issue a ruling. 25 1 As set forth in more detail in the Court's order of December 22, 2021, the 26 expiration date of an "Employment Authorization Document" issued by USCIS to an asylum seeker is extended by 180 days if certain conditions are met, including the 27 applicant's submission of an application for renewal before the expiration date. (See 1 Subsequent to the filing of the instant action, each plaintiff's application for renewal 2 was approved (see Nolan Decl., filed December 5, 2021, ¶¶ 25.a, 25.d; Defs.' Mot., filed 3 January 21, 2022, Exs. A-C), and will remain valid for a period of thirty months from the 4 date of renewal (see Order, filed December 22, 2021, at 4:25), i.e., the renewal period of 5 twenty-four months, followed by the above-referenced 180-day extension period. In light 6 of the issuance of the above-referenced approvals, defendants argue the instant action is 7 now moot and, consequently, should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 "Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, 9 ongoing cases or controversies." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 10 (1990). "The case or controversy requirement of Article III . . . deprives federal courts of 11 jurisdiction to hear moot cases." NAACP, Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 12 1346, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984). "A case becomes moot when interim relief or events have 13 eradicated the effects of the defendant's act or omission, and there is no reasonable 14 expectation that the alleged violation will recur." Id. 15 Here, there is no dispute that a case or controversy no longer exists as to the 16 applications that were pending on the date the action was filed. Although plaintiffs argue 17 there exists a reasonable expectation they will be subjected to allegedly unreasonable 18 delays at the time they again may need to apply for renewal, the Court is not persuaded 19 plaintiffs' prediction of a recurrence that far in the future constitutes more than 20 speculation, given that the reasons for USCIS's delay in adjudicating plaintiffs' most 21 recent applications are, essentially, situational. In particular, USCIS was faced with the 22 onset of a worldwide pandemic with resultant operational and financial impediments (see 23 Nolan Decl. ¶¶ 18-19), a hiring freeze that began in May 2020 and ended in March 2021 24 (see id. ¶ 19), and, in the aftermath of unrelated litigation filed in 2019 and 2021, an 25 obligatory redirection of limited resources to applications filed by non-asylum seekers 26 (see id. ¶ 20). Under such circumstances, the Court finds plaintiffs have failed to 27 "establish a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur involving the 1 Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant 2 action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. See Newcomb v. United States, 98 F.2d 3 || 25, 27 (9th Cir. 1938) (holding, where case becomes moot, district court must "dismiss 4 || the [case] without prejudice"). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: March 2, 2022 . MAXINE M. CHESNEY 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 © 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28