Aguirre v. United States of America ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------- : BYANKA AGUIRRE, , : : CASE NO. 1:20-cv-1913 : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : OPINION AND ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 14] UNITED STATES OF : AMERICA, , : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Known as a “Petition for Alien Relative,” Federal Form I-130 is the “first step in helping an eligible relative” of a United States Citizen or lawful permanent resident “apply to immigrate to the United States and get a Green Card.”1 On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff Byanka Aguirre, a United States Citizen, filed Form I-130 with Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), seeking to identify co-Plaintiff Mohamed Benhrima as her husband.2 On August 13, 2019, after a lengthy administrative process, Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition was denied.3 On August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs sought Administrative Procedure Act judicial review of Defendant USCIS’s adverse decision.4 Plaintiffs also sued the United States of America, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Head, District, 1 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, , https://www.uscis.gov/i-130 (last visited Apr. 14, 2021). 2 Doc. 1-1 at 8. 3 at 10; Doc. 1-4. a nd Field Office USCIS Directors that processed Plaintiffs’ I-130 petition.5 Plaintiffs asked this Court to “order USCIS to re-adjudicate and approve the I-130 Petition in a proper and lawful manner.”6 On February 10, 2021, while this case was pending, Defendant USCIS informed Plaintiffs in writing that it had reopened Plaintiffs’ case and approved Plaintiffs’ I-130 Petition.7 On April 2, 2021, Defendants accordingly moved to dismiss this case as moot, as Defendant USCIS had granted Plaintiffs their requested relief.8 On April 13, 2021, Plaintiffs responded, agreed that they had received their requested relief, and expressed “no[] object[ion] to dismissal on the grounds of mootness.”9 Accordingly, because this case no longer presents a live controversy between the parties, this Court lacks jurisdiction and hereby DISMISSES this case as moot.10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 14, 2021 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 at 19. 7 Doc. 14-2. 8 Doc. 14. 9 Doc. 15. 10 , 558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009) (“If events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief, the case becomes moot and thus falls outside our jurisdiction.”).