Doe v. United States of America
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-06482
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In John Doe v. United States, Judge Orrick granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed three claims, denied the FTCA claim, and granted sealing motions.
The order affected John Doe’s APA and FTCA claims against the defendants. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; Counts One, Two, and Three and the unreasonable-delay claim were dismissed, while the FTCA claim was denied. Doe’s sealing and sur-reply motions were granted, and his interpreter motion was denied as moot.
What happened
John Doe v. United States of America, et al. involved challenges to how United States Citizenship and Immigration Services handled Doe’s asylum application, including alleged delays and conflicting application records. Doe brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The defendants argued that the federal district court lacked authority to hear the claims. During the case, the asylum application was referred to an immigration judge, who granted Doe voluntary departure with a January 22, 2026 deadline; both sides waived appeals of that decision.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissed the unreasonable-delay claim as moot, and denied the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. He also granted Doe’s motions to seal and motion to file a sur-reply, and denied the request for a Mandarin interpreter as moot.
The detailed version
- Doe v. United States of America · No. 3:25-cv-06482
- William Orrick
- Dec. 30, 2025
Background
John Doe entered the United States on a B-2 tourist visa and filed an asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). He alleged that USCIS improperly delayed the application and maintained contradictory records showing the application as both closed and pending. He brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking relief concerning his asylum application and damages for alleged economic losses and expenses.
After Doe filed the case, USCIS referred his asylum application to the Executive Office for Immigration Review and issued a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge. The referral notice stated that the USCIS decision was not a denial of his asylum application and that he could present and amend his application before the immigration judge. On September 24, 2025, the immigration judge granted Doe pre-conclusion voluntary departure, with a departure deadline of January 22, 2026. Both parties waived their rights to appeal that decision.
Jurisdiction over the immigration-related claims
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) automatically barred review of Doe’s claims. The court explained that the statute applies narrowly to decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. Because Doe challenged alleged procedural defects in USCIS’s processing of his asylum application rather than USCIS’s decision on the application itself, the court said that § 1252(g) likely did not bar his procedural due-process challenges.
The court nevertheless concluded that other jurisdictional barriers required dismissal. Under the APA, the court explained, agency action generally must be final before it can be reviewed. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that USCIS’s action was not final because Doe could present his asylum claim again to an immigration judge. Although the later voluntary-departure order meant that agency action had become final by that point, the court stated that finality had to exist when the complaint was filed. Because Doe had not shown final agency action at filing, the court dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Mootness
The court also addressed Doe’s claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed deciding his asylum application. Doe sought an order requiring completion of a final asylum adjudication within 30 days, along with other relief concerning USCIS records. The court concluded that the claim was moot because USCIS had analyzed the application and referred it to the immigration court, providing the adjudication-related relief the complaint sought.
The court rejected Doe’s arguments that exceptions to mootness applied. It said USCIS could not re-refer the case to the immigration court because USCIS no longer had jurisdiction to revisit the asylum application, and Doe had not shown a credible fear that the same procedural defects would happen again. The court therefore dismissed the unreasonable-delay claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Federal Tort Claims Act claim
Doe’s fourth cause of action sought monetary damages under the FTCA for alleged economic losses, medical and psychiatric expenses, lost income and employment opportunities, and litigation-related expenses. The court stated that the relief sought was not proper under the APA, which permits injunctive or declaratory relief but not monetary relief. The court therefore denied the FTCA claim.
Other motions and disposition
The court granted Doe’s motions to seal documents and portions of exhibits containing information that could identify him or create safety risks. It also granted his motion to file a sur-reply and considered that filing. The court denied his motion to appoint a Mandarin interpreter as moot because it did not hold oral argument.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED. The order dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three, dismissed the unreasonable-delay claim for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the FTCA claim. The court classified the matter as jurisdictional and mootness-based rather than deciding the underlying merits of Doe’s claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.