Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou

S.D. Texas

Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou

DecidedMarch 12, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-04129

StatusUnknown

This text of Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou (Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 14, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nehen □□□□□□□ Ce SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MARLEN SAYEGH AGAM DE MAARI, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-04129 UR MENDOZA JADDOU, et al, § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on January 22, 2025 (Doc. #17), Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #18), and Defendants’ Response (Doc, #19), The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (th Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order, Plaintiff objects to Judge Ho’s determination that Plaintiffs asylum application constitutes a non-final, non-reviewable agency action. Doc, #18 at 2, Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Judge Ho’s reliance on Dhakal v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 532, 534 (7th Cir. 2018), as it originates from another circuit and was dismissed on the merits, as opposed to lack of jurisdiction. Jd. at 1. However, since Judge Ho issued her Memorandum and Recommendation, a court in the Southern District of Texas similarly held that the denial of asylum does not constitute a final agency action when, as here, the individual retains valid Temporary Protected Status. See Sayegh de Kewayfati v. Garland, No, CV 24-00180, 2025 WL 347059, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2025). Without final

agency action, the Court lacks jurisdiction over an APA claim, even in an immigration context. See Hildakli vy. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 671 (Sth Cir. 2023). Therefore, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs sole claim under the Administrative Procedure Act is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. is so ORDERED.

MAR 4 2 2025 Date The Honorable Alfred H, Bennett United States Dystrict Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 14, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nehen □□□□□□□ Ce SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MARLEN SAYEGH AGAM DE MAARI, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-04129 UR MENDOZA JADDOU, et al, § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendation filed on January 22, 2025 (Doc. #17), Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #18), and Defendants’ Response (Doc, #19), The Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (th Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order, Plaintiff objects to Judge Ho’s determination that Plaintiffs asylum application constitutes a non-final, non-reviewable agency action. Doc, #18 at 2, Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Judge Ho’s reliance on Dhakal v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 532, 534 (7th Cir. 2018), as it originates from another circuit and was dismissed on the merits, as opposed to lack of jurisdiction. Jd. at 1. However, since Judge Ho issued her Memorandum and Recommendation, a court in the Southern District of Texas similarly held that the denial of asylum does not constitute a final agency action when, as here, the individual retains valid Temporary Protected Status. See Sayegh de Kewayfati v. Garland, No, CV 24-00180, 2025 WL 347059, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2025). Without final

agency action, the Court lacks jurisdiction over an APA claim, even in an immigration context. See Hildakli vy. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 671 (Sth Cir. 2023). Therefore, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs sole claim under the Administrative Procedure Act is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. is so ORDERED.

MAR 4 2 2025 Date The Honorable Alfred H, Bennett United States Dystrict Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Agam de Maari v. Mendoza Jaddou, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agam-de-maari-v-mendoza-jaddou-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack