Mugaidea v. United States Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2836
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FAHMI MOHAMMED ALI MUGAIDEA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 24-cv-2836 (JMC)

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiffs Fahmi Mohammed Ali Mugaidea and Amr Mohammed Ali Mugaidea brought

this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and

their respective Secretaries. See ECF 5.1 Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus compelling

Defendants to issue SE Special Immigrant Visas. Id. ¶ 1. On March 19, 2025, Defendants moved

to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

and 12(b)(6). See ECF 10. More than three weeks have passed, but Plaintiffs, who are represented

by counsel, have neither filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion nor requested an extension of

time to do so. And they have not filed anything else on the docket or taken other steps to prosecute

this case since Defendants moved to dismiss. Because Plaintiffs have failed to respond to

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion as conceded and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to documents filed on the docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page.

1 Local Civil Rule 7(b) requires an opposing party to file a memorandum of points and

authorities in opposition to a motion within 14 days of the service of the motion, or “the Court

may treat the motion as conceded.” LCvR 7(b). Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint

on March 19, 2025, making Plaintiffs’ response due on April 2, 2025. That deadline has come and

gone with no word from Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction as conceded. See ECF 10 at 14–18. In response to a Rule 12(b)(1)

motion, Plaintiffs have the burden to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See,

e.g., Berman v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 23-CV-01017, 2024 WL 3887373, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug.

20, 2024) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). Having filed no

response at all, Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden.

Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 10, and

DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate order accompanies this memorandum

opinion.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: April 11, 2025