Guo v. Mayorkas

Background

Haoran Guo and Zijun Guo, both minors under eighteen, filed a petition asking the court to order the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate their applications to register permanent residence or adjust status. They filed without lawyers, paid the filing fee, and properly served the defendants. The petition alleged that the applications had remained pending beyond the normal processing time and sought an order requiring adjudication.

After the defendants appeared, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial supervision. Before responding to the petition, the defendants reported that USCIS had approved the plaintiffs’ applications while the case was pending—one on August 28, 2024, and the other on September 20, 2024. The defendants also noted that the plaintiffs were unrepresented minors and that they had therefore avoided discussing the case directly with them.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants’ request for a conference, but they did not respond. The opinion states that their last docketed communication with the court or defendants was their filing of executed summonses on July 18, 2024. The plaintiffs had not requested appointed counsel, a guardian, or another representative, and had not asked for assistance seeking volunteer counsel.

Analysis

The court considered the rule that minors generally cannot bring lawsuits on their own behalf and that nonlawyer parents cannot represent them in court. Under that rule, a court may consider requesting volunteer representation for an unrepresented minor when a substantial claim might exist.

The court reviewed the petition to determine whether the plaintiffs’ chances of success were extremely slim, while emphasizing that this review was not a decision on the merits. The court concluded that the record showed no substantial claim that could be brought on the plaintiffs’ behalf. It noted that the USCIS approvals meant the claims might be moot and that the claims might also have jurisdictional or substantive problems, but it expressly stated that those issues were not before the court and that it was taking no position on the merits.

Because the plaintiffs had not sought representation themselves and the court concluded that requesting volunteer representation would not be appropriate, Magistrate Judge Cave declined to request such representation.

Recommendation and Procedure

The Report and Recommendation recommends dismissing the petition without prejudice. The recommendation is based on the plaintiffs’ inability to proceed on their own and the court’s conclusion that the case was not appropriate for a request for volunteer representation; it is not a merits determination.

The parties were given fourteen days after service to file written objections. The notice states that failing to object within that period would waive objections and prevent appellate review. The plaintiffs could retain counsel and, through counsel, object to the recommendation or move to reopen the case if Judge Engelmayer ultimately dismissed the petition without prejudice.