Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

D. Massachusetts

Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

DecidedOctober 25, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-11314

StatusUnknown

This text of Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)) 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

Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), (D. Mass. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________ ) FABIO SILVESTRE GONCALVES, PAULA ) GABRIELA DA SILVA BARROS, and I.G., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 23-11314-FDS ) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ) SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO ) MAYORKAS, in his official capacity; and ) UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

SAYLOR, C.J. Plaintiffs Fabio Silvestre Goncalves, Paula Gabriela Da Silva Barros, and I.G. filed a complaint in this case on June 10, 2023. Their complaint requested a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to take action on their Form I-130 petition, an order to compel a decision, a declaratory judgment, and fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. On August 15, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although plaintiffs are represented by counsel, no opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed. 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 denied Goncalves’ Form I-130 petition on August 2, 2023. Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot. See, e.g., Sisse v. Moniz, 388 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D. Mass. 2019); Chen v. Johnson, 2016 WL 7045699 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2016); Chocho v. Shanahan, 308 F. Supp. 3d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Singh v. Jaddou, 2023 WL 2976297 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2023) (collecting cases). 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. The clerk is directed to enter a separate order of dismissal.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: October 25, 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

_______________________________________ ) FABIO SILVESTRE GONCALVES, PAULA ) GABRIELA DA SILVA BARROS, and I.G., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 23-11314-FDS ) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ) SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ) HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO ) MAYORKAS, in his official capacity; and ) UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

SAYLOR, C.J. Plaintiffs Fabio Silvestre Goncalves, Paula Gabriela Da Silva Barros, and I.G. filed a complaint in this case on June 10, 2023. Their complaint requested a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to take action on their Form I-130 petition, an order to compel a decision, a declaratory judgment, and fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. On August 15, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although plaintiffs are represented by counsel, no opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed. 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 denied Goncalves’ Form I-130 petition on August 2, 2023. Accordingly, all claims raised by the complaint appear to be moot. See, e.g., Sisse v. Moniz, 388 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D. Mass. 2019); Chen v. Johnson, 2016 WL 7045699 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2016); Chocho v. Shanahan, 308 F. Supp. 3d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Singh v. Jaddou, 2023 WL 2976297 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2023) (collecting cases). 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. The clerk is directed to enter a separate order of dismissal.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: October 25, 2023 Chief Judge, United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goncalves v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goncalves-v-us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-uscis-mad-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack