987 F.3d 384
5th Cir.2021Background
- Anastasiia and Aurel Ermuraki (husband and wife) were selected for the Diversity Visa (DV) lottery for FY2019 and filed adjustment of status applications on October 9, 2018.
- USCIS denied their applications on April 17, 2019, concluding they lacked lawful status when they applied (8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(2)).
- The Ermurakis filed a motion to reconsider/reopen on May 20, 2019; USCIS denied that motion on September 23, 2019 (counsel notified Sept. 26, 2019).
- The statutory deadline requires diversity visas be issued before midnight on the last day of the relevant fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2019 for FY2019).
- The Ermurakis filed their district-court complaint on October 24, 2019 (after the FY expired). The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the merits without resolving mootness.
- The Fifth Circuit held the claim was moot when filed, vacated the district-court judgment, and dismissed the case for lack of Article III jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge to a DV-status-adjustment denial is moot once the fiscal year expires | Ermurakis sought review of USCIS denial and had filed a motion to reconsider/reopen; relief should still be available | Once the fiscal year ends, no DV can be issued, so court cannot grant meaningful relief and the claim is moot | Claim was moot at filing because the FY deadline passed before suit, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court could resolve the merits without first addressing jurisdiction/mootness | Implicitly proceeded to merits (district court found merits meritorious) | Jurisdictional questions (mootness) must be resolved before merits under Steel Co. | Appellate court vacated the merits judgment because mootness occurred pre-judgment; dismisses case |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must establish Article III jurisdiction before adjudicating merits)
- Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906 (11th Cir. 2003) (challenge to DV denial is moot after the relevant fiscal year expires)
- Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 1999) (when mootness occurs before final judgment, vacatur and dismissal are required)
- Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (recognizes a limited exception where district court granted some relief before the fiscal year ended)