Patricia Peters v. Janet Napolitano

Ninth Circuit

Patricia Peters v. Janet Napolitano

565 F. App'x 589

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2014

Docket10-55889

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 565 F. App'x 589 (Patricia Peters v. Janet Napolitano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patricia Peters v. Janet Napolitano, 565 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER *

Patricia Peters appeals the district court’s judgment affirming, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) denial of Peters’ application for adjustment of status. Three days after the district court entered judgment, US-CIS issued a Notice to Appear commencing removal proceedings. Because the commencement of removal proceedings forecloses any plausible relief on Peters’ APA claim, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Under Cabaccang v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 627 F.3d 1313, 1315-17 (9th Cir.2010), a district court loses subject-matter jurisdiction of an APA claim challenging USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status once removal proceedings have begun and the same relief may be pursued before the immigration court. Peters concedes that if we were to find error in the district court’s resolution of the claim, the district court could not enter a judgment for Peters on remand. And even assuming we could remand directly to USCIS, such a remand would be “futile at this point” because now “the immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over [Peters’] adjustment of status application[.]” Ibarra v. Swacina, 628 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir.2010).

As for her challenge to the decision of USCIS, the commencement of removal proceedings has left Peters without a “legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496-97, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), and reduced her appeal of the agency’s resolution to an abstract exercise. “It has been long settled that a federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). When “an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the *590 court to grant any effectual relief!,] • • • the appeal must be dismissed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER *

Patricia Peters appeals the district court’s judgment affirming, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) denial of Peters’ application for adjustment of status. Three days after the district court entered judgment, US-CIS issued a Notice to Appear commencing removal proceedings. Because the commencement of removal proceedings forecloses any plausible relief on Peters’ APA claim, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Under Cabaccang v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 627 F.3d 1313, 1315-17 (9th Cir.2010), a district court loses subject-matter jurisdiction of an APA claim challenging USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status once removal proceedings have begun and the same relief may be pursued before the immigration court. Peters concedes that if we were to find error in the district court’s resolution of the claim, the district court could not enter a judgment for Peters on remand. And even assuming we could remand directly to USCIS, such a remand would be “futile at this point” because now “the immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over [Peters’] adjustment of status application[.]” Ibarra v. Swacina, 628 F.3d 1269, 1270 (11th Cir.2010).

As for her challenge to the decision of USCIS, the commencement of removal proceedings has left Peters without a “legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496-97, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), and reduced her appeal of the agency’s resolution to an abstract exercise. “It has been long settled that a federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). When “an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the *590 court to grant any effectual relief!,] • • • the appeal must be dismissed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 F. App'x 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-peters-v-janet-napolitano-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack