321 F. Supp. 3d 320
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Mahon, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, entered the U.S. in 1990; her U.S. citizen father filed an I-130 that was approved in 1999.
- Mahon filed to adjust status in 2000 as an unmarried daughter, but she married in 2001; USCIS nevertheless adjusted her status to lawful permanent resident in December 2003.
- Mahon applied for naturalization; USCIS initially approved but later revoked/denied naturalization after concluding her 2003 adjustment was not in accordance with law.
- In 2014 Mahon’s U.S. citizen husband filed an I-130 and Mahon filed a second adjustment application; USCIS approved the I-130 but denied the adjustment in October 2014, stating she was already an LPR.
- Mahon sued in district court (styled as mandamus and seeking declaratory relief and vacatur of the denial) in 2016; USCIS placed Mahon in removal proceedings in October 2016 on grounds her 2003 adjustment was invalid.
- The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: the mandamus claim was moot and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the adjustment denial because Mahon had not exhausted administrative remedies in removal proceedings; attorney’s fees claim denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus to compel adjudication of second adjustment | USCIS failed to adjudicate her second adjustment; court should order adjudication | USCIS already adjudicated the second application (denial in Oct 2014) | Dismissed as moot; court cannot compel action already taken |
| Judicial review / vacatur of adjustment denial and claim that 2003 LPR status was void ab initio | USCIS misapplied law and should have corrected classification or requested evidence; asks court to vacate denial | Mahon must exhaust remedies in removal proceedings; district court lacks jurisdiction while removal proceedings are available | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under exhaustion doctrine; Mahon must renew application before Immigration Judge; no exhaustion exceptions apply |
| Attorney’s fees under EAJA (28 U.S.C. § 2412) | Fees requested as prevailing party in judicial review of agency action | No jurisdiction and Mahon is not a prevailing party | Denied for lack of jurisdiction and because plaintiff did not prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.A.R.L., 790 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissal)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to show jurisdiction)
- Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (court takes allegations as true when assessing jurisdiction)
- Barrett v. United States, 105 F.3d 793 (2d Cir. 1996) (mandamus claim moot when official has already acted)
- Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 1994) (Article III prohibits moot claims)
- Howell v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 72 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 1995) (district court lacks jurisdiction to review adjustment denial once removal proceedings provide opportunity to renew application)
- Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2006) (adjustment of status is discretionary; no protected liberty or property interest)
- Elliott v. U.S. Dep't of State, 122 F. Supp. 3d 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (EAJA requires jurisdiction and prevailing party status for fee awards)