Allen v. Garland
- Joseph Spero
- 3:21-cv-09941
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Allen v. Garland, Judge Spero dismissed Allen’s mandamus case as moot after USCIS decided her naturalization applications, without reaching their merits.
Nelly Allen’s case was dismissed because USCIS had already decided the naturalization applications at issue; the order did not decide whether those denials were correct.
What happened
In Allen v. Garland, Nelly Allen asked the court to order U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to decide her pending naturalization applications. While the case was pending, USCIS denied both applications.
The defendants argued that the case was moot because USCIS had done what Allen requested—made decisions on the applications. Allen argued that the delay could happen again and that the court should review an earlier denial, but the court said this case was not the proper procedure for reviewing the denials.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, without leave to amend but without prejudice to Allen pursuing administrative relief or a separate judicial action challenging USCIS’s decisions. The court did not decide whether the denials were correct.
The detailed version
- Allen v. Garland · No. 3:21-cv-09941
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Nelly Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action in December 2021 seeking an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate her pending Form N-400 naturalization applications. She named Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Acting USCIS Director Tracy Renaud, and USCIS’s San Francisco office director Robin Barrett as defendants.
Allen had filed naturalization applications in 2011, 2017, and
- The opinion states that USCIS denied the 2011 application in
- USCIS interviewed Allen regarding her two pending applications in June 2022, issued notices of intent to deny them, and denied both applications on November 9,
- USCIS determined that Allen had not shown the required good moral character, relying in substantial part on findings that she had practiced immigration law without authorization and that her conduct had harmed clients.
Motion and jurisdictional standard
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the case was moot because USCIS had adjudicated the applications Allen had asked the court to compel it to decide.
The court explained that federal courts must have a live dispute throughout the case. A case becomes moot when the plaintiff no longer has a concrete injury that a court can remedy. The court also considered the exception for a dispute that is capable of repetition yet likely to end before it can be reviewed, but held that Allen had not shown either required element. The court found no sufficient showing that future delay could not be litigated before USCIS acted, or that USCIS was likely to impermissibly delay a future application.
Arguments about reviewing the denials
Allen argued that an earlier application had been denied without cause and should receive a fresh review in this case. The court rejected that approach, explaining that an action seeking an order to compel a decision on a pending naturalization application is not the procedure for reviewing a denial. The court stated that an unsuccessful applicant must first pursue the required administrative appeal before seeking judicial review under the naturalization statutes.
The court expressly did not reach Allen’s arguments about the merits of USCIS’s decisions. It stated that the order did not prevent Allen from pursuing administrative relief or a separate judicial action to challenge those decisions.
Disposition
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). The action seeking decisions on applications that had already been adjudicated was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without leave to amend but without prejudice to Allen pursuing administrative relief or a separate judicial action challenging USCIS’s substantive decisions. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.