Li v. Mayorkas

Opinion

BINMEI LI, Case No.: 22-CV-1562 TWR (DDL)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

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