Li v. Mayorkas

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01562
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BINMEI LI, Case No.: 22-CV-1562 TWR (DDL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,

Secretary of the Department of 15 (ECF No. 6) Homeland Security; and MERRICK 16 GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by 21 Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas and Merrick Garland. (ECF No. 6, “Mot.”) Plaintiff 22 Binmei Li’s deadline to oppose the Motion was August 10, 2023. (See ECF No. 7.) As of 23 the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion despite the Court’s warning 24 that failure to timely file an opposition to a motion may be construed as consent to the 25 granting of the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3). (See ECF No. 7.) 26 In any event, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is warranted at this 27 time. The only relief Plaintiff seeks in her Complaint is an order requiring 28 Defendants/United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate 1 ||her I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal within ninety days. (See 2 ||ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) After Plaintiff filed her Complaint, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff and 3 subsequently found Plaintiff ineligible for asylum. (See Mot. at 2-3; ECF No. 6-1 at 4-6.) 4 ||/USCIS then referred Plaintiff's asylum application to an immigration judge for 5 || adjudication in removal proceedings.' (See ECF No. 6-1 at 4-6.) As such, Plaintiff’s claim 6 ||is moot—Plaintiff has already received the relief she requested in her Complaint and there 7 no longer a live case or controversy for the Court to resolve. (See Mot. at 3-4.) See 8 ||Aguirre v. S.S. Sohio Intrepid, 801 F.2d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Where the question 9 || sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to the filing of the 10 |}complaint, no justiciable controversy is presented.”); id. (explaining courts “cannot take 11 jurisdiction over a claim as to which no effective relief can be granted, because ‘federal 12 || courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the 13 ||case before them.’” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 14 || Motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint. The Clerk of Court 15 |}is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: August 24, 2023 —_—— 18 | od (2 re 19 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 50 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 2 26 ||! If, after an asylum interview, a USCIS asylum officer does not grant asylum to the applicant, and the applicant appears to be inadmissible or deportable, the officer shall refer the application to an 27 |! immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (c)(1). Once an 3g || applicant’s case is placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, the immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over the asylum application. See 8 C.E.R. § 208.2(b).