Ying Lin v. Christopher Heffron

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 22-1380
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1380 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1380

YING LIN; YI LIN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHRISTOPHER M. HEFFRON, Field Office Director for the Charlotte Field Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States; ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; UR M. JADDOU, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00647-MOC-DCK)

Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: January 27, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Bruno J. Bembi, LAW OFFICE OF BRUNO J. BEMBI, Hempstead, New York, for Appellants. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1380 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ying Lin and Yi Lin appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint

challenging the Defendants’ decision denying Ying Lin derivative asylee status under 8

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Balfour Beatty Infrastructure,

Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 855 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2017). Dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate “if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the

moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Upon our review, we conclude that the district court properly found that it was

without jurisdiction to consider the agency’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED