Martins Guimaraes Bromfman v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Civil Action No. 2021-0571
| D.D.C. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Felipe Bromfman, a Brazilian national, filed an I-526 EB-5 petition on October 1, 2019, investing $500,000 in a USCIS‑approved Regional Center project that had an approved exemplar and other approved I-526s.
- USCIS had approved the Project and an exemplar I-526 in 2017 and approved other individual investor petitions, but took no adjudicatory action on Bromfman’s petition prior to this suit.
- Bromfman sued on March 3, 2021, seeking mandamus and APA relief to compel USCIS to adjudicate his pending I-526.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and later argued the case is moot because Congress allowed the Regional Center Program’s statutory authorization to expire on June 30, 2021.
- The court solicited supplemental briefing on the effect of the program’s lapse and whether a stay was appropriate, then concluded that the expired statutory authorization made it impossible to grant effectual relief on Bromfman’s Regional‑Center‑based claim.
- The court dismissed the action as moot and closed the case; it declined to resolve other jurisdictional or merits arguments given mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency delay in adjudicating I‑526 warrants mandamus/APA relief | Bromfman: USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudication and mandamus/APA can compel action | USCIS: plaintiff cannot show a clear right, a clear nondiscretionary duty, or extraordinary delay; procedural defects | Court did not decide on the merits because case is moot after program lapse |
| Whether lapse of Regional Center Program moots the suit | Bromfman (alternative): USCIS could adjudicate under broader EB‑5 framework; requested stay pending congressional reauthorization | USCIS: program expiration eliminates any meaningful relief for Regional‑Center‑dependent petitions; cases must be dismissed as moot | Court: lapse renders relief impossible; complaint dismissed as moot |
| Whether a stay is appropriate pending reauthorization | Bromfman: stay is warranted to await Congress | USCIS: inconsistent policy but argues mootness for claims filed shortly before sunset | Court: decline to stay; judicial economy supports dismissal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (Article III requires a live case or controversy at all stages)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (mootness must exist throughout litigation)
- Porzecanski v. Azar, 943 F.3d 472 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (case moot if court cannot grant effectual relief)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (moot when intervening events make relief impossible)
- J.T. v. District of Columbia, 983 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (mootness requires a live controversy at review stages)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (decision will not affect rights if chance is speculative)
- S. Co. Servs., Inc. v. FERC, 416 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (burden allocation on mootness and exceptions)
- Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (heavy initial burden to establish mootness)