Vu v. Jaddou

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedOctober 26, 2023
DocketCivil Action No. 2023-2332
StatusPublished

This text of Vu v. Jaddou (Vu v. Jaddou) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vu v. Jaddou, (D.D.C. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LINH THI MAI VU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 23-2332 (CKK) UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity as Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (October 26, 2023)

Plaintiffs are foreign nationals who have applied for an “immigrant investor” or “EB-5”

visa. Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 70. To apply for their visas, they each submitted their respective

Form I-526 in September 26, 2016, Id. ¶¶ 77, 83, the first and critical step in the administrative

process for such a visa, Da Costa v. Imm. Investor Program Off., 643 F. Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C. Nov.

16, 2022) (JEB). The complaint alleges that, to date, the reviewing agency, the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), has taken no action on their applications. Id. ¶

5. The complaint therefore presses one claim, alleging that USCIS’s delay is unlawful, and one

relevant request for relief, a court order mandating the review of Plaintiffs’ applications (i.e.,

their Form I-526 submissions). See id. ¶ 93.

Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, demonstrating that USCIS

favorably approved each Form I-526 in September 2023. ECF No. 5 at 1-2. In response,

Plaintiffs do not appear to contest this factual assertion, instead cryptically notifying the Court

that they may file an amended complaint. Currently, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, so “it must dismiss the case.” Banks v. Harrison, 864 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146 (D.D.C.

2012).

Article III limits federal jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. Lujan v. Defs. of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Where an agency takes the administrative action sought, any

claim of unreasonable delay is necessarily moot. Haider v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Civ. A.

No. 20-3808 (CKK), 2021 WL 5630794, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2021). As USCIS has taken the

action Plaintiffs sought to compel in their complaint, this matter is therefore moot. Because the

Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court shall dismiss this case without prejudice by separate order.

Dated: October 26, 2023 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

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

Related

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992)
DiMaggio v. United States Postal Service
643 F. Supp. 1 (D. Connecticut, 1984)
Banks v. Harrison
864 F. Supp. 2d 142 (District of Columbia, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vu v. Jaddou, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vu-v-jaddou-dcd-2023.