Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

W.D. Washington

Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-05284

StatusUnknown

This text of Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al (Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ALVIN BALUYOT CERVANIA, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05284-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS (DKT. NO. 13) 13 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for mootness. 17 (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff’s claims are now moot because Plaintiff has been granted relief. The 18 Court, therefore, DISMISSES the case. 19 I BACKGROUND 20 In 2021, Plaintiff Alvin Baluyot Cervania filed a Form I-485, Application to Register 21 Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 22 petition for writ of mandamus to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 23 (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his I-485 application. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) The parties twice requested— 24 1 and the Court twice granted—that the Court stay the case while they worked towards a 2 resolution. (Dkt. Nos. 7–10.) The case was further stayed during the government shutdown. 3 (See Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) 4 On September 11, 2025, USCIS issued a decision adjudicating Plaintiff’s I-485

5 application. (Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2–3.) On November 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to 6 dismiss for mootness, arguing Plaintiff’s I-485 application had been adjudicated and the Court no 7 longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1–2.) Plaintiff did not 8 respond to the motion. 9 II LEGAL STANDARD 10 A district court must dismiss an action if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject 11 matter of the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction 12 bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. A complaint will be dismissed under 13 Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if (1) the cause does not “arise under” any 14 federal law or the United States Constitution; (2) there is no “case or controversy” within the

15 meaning of that constitutional term; or (3) the cause is not one described by any jurisdictional 16 statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). A case becomes moot if the “the issues 17 presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 18 Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). 19 III DISCUSSION 20 The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, vests district courts with “original jurisdiction 21 over any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States 22 or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Here, Plaintiff contends 23 Defendants have a duty to act on his Form I-485. (Dkt. No. 1.)

24 1 Defendants assert the petition should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because 2 there is no justiciable case or controversy. Defendants submit a declaration demonstrating that 3 Plaintiff’s I-485 application was adjudicated on or about September 11, 2025. (Dkt. No. 14-1.) 4 Accordingly, there is no application on which the Court could compel Defendants to act. See

5 Akinmulero v. Holder, 347 F. App’x 58, 60 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (application for writ of 6 mandamus was moot where USCIS administratively closed I-485 application and petitioner 7 failed to show that there was any claim remaining in his application on which the district court 8 could compel action); Mohammed v. Holder, 695 F. Supp. 2d 284, 289 (E.D. Va. 2010) (“[T]he 9 petition for a writ of mandamus is moot because the USCIS has already adjudicated petitioner’s 10 application for adjustment of status to the extent permissible under binding federal regulations.”). 11 Because Plaintiff has been granted the relief he sought, the petition for writ of mandamus is now 12 moot. 13 IV CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED, and the

15 petition for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 1.) is DISMISSED as moot. The Clerk of Court is 16 directed to close the case. 17 Dated this 5th day of January, 2026. 18 A 19 David G. Estudillo 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ALVIN BALUYOT CERVANIA, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05284-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS (DKT. NO. 13) 13 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for mootness. 17 (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff’s claims are now moot because Plaintiff has been granted relief. The 18 Court, therefore, DISMISSES the case. 19 I BACKGROUND 20 In 2021, Plaintiff Alvin Baluyot Cervania filed a Form I-485, Application to Register 21 Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 22 petition for writ of mandamus to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 23 (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his I-485 application. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) The parties twice requested— 24 1 and the Court twice granted—that the Court stay the case while they worked towards a 2 resolution. (Dkt. Nos. 7–10.) The case was further stayed during the government shutdown. 3 (See Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) 4 On September 11, 2025, USCIS issued a decision adjudicating Plaintiff’s I-485

5 application. (Dkt. No. 14-1 at 2–3.) On November 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to 6 dismiss for mootness, arguing Plaintiff’s I-485 application had been adjudicated and the Court no 7 longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1–2.) Plaintiff did not 8 respond to the motion. 9 II LEGAL STANDARD 10 A district court must dismiss an action if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject 11 matter of the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction 12 bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. A complaint will be dismissed under 13 Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if (1) the cause does not “arise under” any 14 federal law or the United States Constitution; (2) there is no “case or controversy” within the

15 meaning of that constitutional term; or (3) the cause is not one described by any jurisdictional 16 statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). A case becomes moot if the “the issues 17 presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 18 Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). 19 III DISCUSSION 20 The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, vests district courts with “original jurisdiction 21 over any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States 22 or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Here, Plaintiff contends 23 Defendants have a duty to act on his Form I-485. (Dkt. No. 1.)

24 1 Defendants assert the petition should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because 2 there is no justiciable case or controversy. Defendants submit a declaration demonstrating that 3 Plaintiff’s I-485 application was adjudicated on or about September 11, 2025. (Dkt. No. 14-1.) 4 Accordingly, there is no application on which the Court could compel Defendants to act. See

5 Akinmulero v. Holder, 347 F. App’x 58, 60 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (application for writ of 6 mandamus was moot where USCIS administratively closed I-485 application and petitioner 7 failed to show that there was any claim remaining in his application on which the district court 8 could compel action); Mohammed v. Holder, 695 F. Supp. 2d 284, 289 (E.D. Va. 2010) (“[T]he 9 petition for a writ of mandamus is moot because the USCIS has already adjudicated petitioner’s 10 application for adjustment of status to the extent permissible under binding federal regulations.”). 11 Because Plaintiff has been granted the relief he sought, the petition for writ of mandamus is now 12 moot. 13 IV CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED, and the

15 petition for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 1.) is DISMISSED as moot. The Clerk of Court is 16 directed to close the case. 17 Dated this 5th day of January, 2026. 18 A 19 David G. Estudillo 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alvin Baluyot Cervania v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvin-baluyot-cervania-v-united-states-citizenship-and-immigration-wawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack