Ravulapalli v. Napolitano, 840 F. Supp. 2d 200

Plaintiffs Ravulapalli and spouse sought to adjust status; USCIS denied, then reopened and later approved I-485s.
ERP Analysts had filed I-140; ERP withdrew the offer, prompting a dispute over portability and Yates review.
USCIS reopened the I-485s on its own motion and issued notices; ultimately approved the applications and granted green cards.
Plaintiffs sued in 2010, alleging APA violations (portability, Yates review, and denial/automatic denial) and seeking relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings; later Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment argued mootness and lack of standing.
Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot because status was granted, and independent standing arguments failed; jurisdiction is lacking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the claims moot after I-485 approvals?	Ravulapalli argues ongoing review of denial/portability and Yates review.	Defendants contend subsequent approval moots the claims.	Yes; claims moot due to approval and mooted relief
Do Ravulapalli have standing to challenge denial and grant of I-485?	Plaintiffs claim ongoing injury from potential rescission and naturalization proof issues.	No concrete injury; any risk is speculative and future.	No standing; injury-in-fact not shown
Is the re-opening/grant of I-485 within scope of the complaint?	Plaintiffs challenge the process (portability, Yates review) which they say occurred during reopening/grant.	New allegations outside the complaint cannot form jurisdiction.	Outside scope; mootness analysis controls
Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction if mootness and standing are unresolved?	If not moot, court should address APA challenges to agency process.	Mootness and lack of standing deprive jurisdiction.	Jurisdiction lacking; mootness and standing defeat it

National Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (live controversy requirement governs mootness and standing)
Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1979) (two-part mootness test for voluntary cessation and redressability)
21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (court must evaluate mootness at all litigation stages)
Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (presumption of regularity for agency actions)
Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc; live controversy requirement)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (injury must be real and redressable for standing)
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1943) (avoidance of impermissible expansion of relief via new theories)
United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1926) (presumption of regularity for government action)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (due process considerations in injunctive relief)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1975) (core mootness principles in federal jurisdiction)