Eunice Namondo Gwanmesia v. Kristi Noem

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02004
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 EUNICE NAMONDO GWANMESIA, Case No.2:25-CV-2005 JCM (DJA)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v.

10 KRISTI NOEM,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is defendant Kristi Noem’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8). 14 Plaintiff Eunice Namondo Gwanmesia filed a response (ECF No. 9), to which defendant replied 15 (ECF No. 10). 16 I. Background 17 Plaintiff is a citizen of Cameroon. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff filed her adjustment of status 18 application to obtain lawful permanent residence on June 8, 2023. (Id.). On August 4, 2023, the 19 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) administratively closed the 20 application because plaintiff was in removal proceedings. (Id.). 21 In March of 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen with USCIS along with evidence that 22 her removal proceedings were dismissed; USCIS advised plaintiff that she would receive a 23 response within 60 days. (Id.). To date, USCIS has not adjudicated her adjustment of status 24 application. (Id.). 25 Plaintiff now petitions the court to compel the government to adjudicate her application. 26 Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and alleges violations of 27 Sections 555(b) and 706(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 28 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)(A). 1 II. Legal Standard 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a court to dismiss claims over which 3 it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional 4 challenge may be either facial or factual. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). When 5 a defendant argues the claims in a complaint, even if true, are insufficient to establish subject 6 matter jurisdiction, the challenge is a facial one. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 7 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), 8 courts must accept all material allegations in a complaint as true and construe the complaint in 9 favor of the plaintiff. White, 227 F.3d at 1242; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); Maya 10 v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2011). By contrast, in a factual attack to subject 11 matter jurisdiction, a challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would 12 otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction. Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. Courts may look 13 beyond a complaint only when the defendant factually attacks jurisdiction. White, 227 F.3d at 14 1242. 15 III. Discussion 16 “[M]andamus relief and relief under the APA are in essence the same,” therefore, the 17 jurisdictional analysis flowing from either is equivalent. Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131, 1135 (9th 18 Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see Indep. Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 1997); Dong 19 v. Chertoff, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1161 (N.D. Cal. 2007). 20 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal official to 21 perform a duty only if: (1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s duty is 22 nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other 23 adequate remedy is available.” Grondal v. United States, 37 F.4th 610, 620 (9th Cir. 2022) 24 (quoting Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003)). 25 Likewise, a claim alleging agency delay under the APA requires plaintiffs to assert “that 26 an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.” Norton v. S. Utah 27 Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (emphasis in original). Thus, a court can compel agency 28 action “only if there is ‘a specific, unequivocal command’ placed on the agency to take a ‘discrete 1 agency action,’ and the agency has failed to take that action.” Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Cent. 2 Intel. Agency, 811 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Norton at 63–64). 3 Section 551(b) states, in relevant part, that “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and 4 necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall 5 proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Section 706(1) states, in relevant 6 part, that “[t]he reviewing court shall . . . compel agency action unlawfully withheld or 7 unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 8 The court does not find either section imposes a mandatory duty on the government to take 9 a particular agency action. Instead, these statutes provide a general directive requiring agencies to 10 conclude matters within a reasonable time while leaving “officials ample room for judgment based 11 on the circumstances.” Khachutorov v. Britten, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2025) 12 (quoting Karimova v. Abate, No. 23-5178, 2024 WL 3517852, at *3–4 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2024)). 13 Thus, since the APA does not place a specific, unequivocal command on USCIS, the court 14 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to compel agency action. 15 IV. Conclusion 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant’s motion to 18 dismiss (ECF No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

19 DATED February 13, 2026. 20

21 _____________________________________________ 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28