ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

D. Massachusetts

ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

DecidedApril 24, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-40085

StatusUnknown

This text of ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, (D. Mass. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) RAMEEZ ALI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 22-40085-FDS ) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ) Secretary of the Department of Homeland ) Security; and UR MENDOZA JADDOU, ) Director of United States Citizenship and ) Immigration Services, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SAYLOR, C.J. Plaintiff Rameez Ali filed a complaint in this case on October 14, 2021. His complaint requested a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to take action on his I-40 petition. The complaint was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was transferred to this court on July 26, 2022. On September 21, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On December 13, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff has not responded to any motion. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate when “the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Horizon Bank & Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2004). According to the government, USCIS approved plaintiff’s I-40 application on September 1, 2022. Accordingly, the sole issue raised by the complaint is moot. The Court will accordingly dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution are DENIED as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a separate order of

dismissal.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: April 24, 2023 Chief Judge, United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) RAMEEZ ALI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 22-40085-FDS ) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ) Secretary of the Department of Homeland ) Security; and UR MENDOZA JADDOU, ) Director of United States Citizenship and ) Immigration Services, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SAYLOR, C.J. Plaintiff Rameez Ali filed a complaint in this case on October 14, 2021. His complaint requested a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to take action on his I-40 petition. The complaint was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was transferred to this court on July 26, 2022. On September 21, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On December 13, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff has not responded to any motion. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate when “the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Horizon Bank & Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2004). According to the government, USCIS approved plaintiff’s I-40 application on September 1, 2022. Accordingly, the sole issue raised by the complaint is moot. The Court will accordingly dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution are DENIED as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a separate order of

dismissal.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: April 24, 2023 Chief Judge, United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ALI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security-mad-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack