Pradeep Saraf v. Tracy Renaud

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-15795
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRADEEP SARAF, No. 23-15795

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:21-cv-03115-VKD

and MEMORANDUM* SAURABH JAIN; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRACY RENAUD, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; UR M. JADDOU, USCIS Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 3, 2024** San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: S.R. THOMAS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District Judge.

Appellant Pradeep Saraf (“Saraf”) appeals the district court’s decision

granting the government’s motion for summary judgment on Saraf’s claim that the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) unreasonably

delayed processing his Form I-526 petition in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Saraf

asserts that the district court erred by denying his requests for discovery. However,

on April 15, 2024, six weeks before scheduled argument, the USCIS approved

Saraf’s long-pending Form I-526 petition.

As there no longer exists a present controversy for which relief can be

granted, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss Saraf’s appeal. See Donovan v.

Vance, 70 F.4th 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2023). There is nothing in the record to

indicate that Saraf caused this matter to become moot. Because Saraf’s appeal

became moot through no fault of his own, we remand the case to the district court

with instructions to vacate its grant of summary judgment in favor of the

government. See id. at 1172–73 (“Under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340

U.S. 36, 39, (1950), vacatur is generally automatic in the Ninth Circuit when a case

becomes moot on appeal. We decline to apply Munsingwear vacatur only when the

*** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

2 party seeking appellate relief fails to protect itself or is the cause of subsequent

mootness.” (cleaned up)).

DISMISSED and REMANDED with instructions.1

1 Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.