Eunice Namondo Gwanmesia v. Kristi Noem

Opinion

* * *

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

Plaintiff(s), ORDER v.

Defendant(s).

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

DATED February 13, 2026.

_____________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE