Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges
Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges, Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Washington, D.C.; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.; and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04613
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Abdirahman H. v. Borges, Judge Tostrud dismissed without prejudice an immigration petition after the petitioner failed to respond to the government's motion to dismiss.
Legal permanent residents who have applied for naturalization and are experiencing delays or cancellations of their required interviews, particularly those considering filing suit to compel government action. This ruling illustrates that failing to respond to a government motion to dismiss — even in a sympathetic case — will result in dismissal.
What happened
In Abdirahman H. v. Borges (No. 25-cv-4613), Abdirahman H., a legal permanent resident, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an order requiring government officials to conduct his naturalization interview. He had applied for naturalization in June 2023, had his interview canceled in November 2023, and never received a rescheduled date. He filed suit in December 2025 to force the government to act.
The government responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case in February 2026. Under the court's local rules, Abdirahman had 21 days to file a response. He missed that deadline and did not file any response at all.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted the government's motion to dismiss, finding that a party's failure to respond to a motion counts as a waiver of opposition to that motion. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Abdirahman is not barred from refiling.
The detailed version
- Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges · No. 0:25-cv-04613
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 2, 2026
Background
Abdirahman H. is a legal permanent resident of the United States. On June 6, 2023, he filed an application for naturalization — the legal process by which a lawful permanent resident may become a U.S. citizen. A naturalization interview was scheduled for November 16, 2023, but was canceled. The interview was never rescheduled.
On December 12, 2025, Abdirahman filed this lawsuit in the District of Minnesota. He named as respondents (defendants) Luis R. Borges, Acting Field Office Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Minneapolis; Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS in Washington, D.C.; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General. (The court substituted Mullin for Kristi Noem and Blanche for Pamela Bondi pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), which governs the substitution of public officials when they leave office during pending litigation. Neither Noem nor Bondi was sued in an individual capacity.) Abdirahman sought a court order compelling the defendants to conduct his naturalization interview.
Procedural History
On February 20, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(c)(2), Abdirahman had 21 days to file a response in opposition. He did not respond by the deadline and had not responded at all as of the date of the opinion.
Legal Standard Applied
The court applied a well-established principle in the District of Minnesota: a party's failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver of opposition to that motion. The court cited several prior decisions from the same district for this proposition, including cases in which failure to respond to a motion to dismiss was treated as waiver and grounds for granting the motion.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis of Abdirahman's failure to respond, which the court treated as a waiver. The court ordered the action dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but the petitioner is not legally barred from filing a new lawsuit raising the same claims in the future.
Notes
The court did not reach the merits of any arguments raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss. The sole basis for dismissal was procedural — the petitioner's failure to oppose the motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.