Mora-Albarran v. Mayorkas

Background

Ramon Mora-Albarran sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to review certain agency actions. He challenged USCIS’s denial of his Form I-90 application to replace his lawful permanent resident card. His requested relief included vacating the denial, directing approval of the application, declaring that he remained a lawful permanent resident, and preventing removal or denial of admission unless there was a final removal order.

Mora-Albarran alleged that, when he was stopped by immigration officials while attempting to reenter the United States in 1986, an officer accused him of marriage fraud and warned that he could face a long prison sentence if he did not give up his permanent resident status. He signed Form I-407, which records abandonment of lawful permanent residence. He alleged that the form was invalid because he was not advised about the implications of waiving counsel. His later I-90 renewal application was denied based solely on that form.

After the lawsuit was filed, USCIS reopened and approved the I-90 application and produced and mailed him a new lawful permanent resident card. The government then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the approval made the case moot. Mora-Albarran opposed dismissal and filed a motion for summary judgment, but the court stayed briefing on that motion pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

Issue and legal standard

The issue was whether USCIS’s approval of the I-90 application eliminated the live dispute. A case is moot when the court can no longer provide effective relief or the parties no longer have a legally recognizable interest in the outcome. When a defendant voluntarily stops the challenged conduct, however, the case is not moot unless the defendant shows both that the alleged violation is not reasonably expected to recur and that the effects of the violation have been completely and permanently eliminated. The defendant bears a heavy burden to make it clear that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably happen again.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the government did not meet that burden. The government’s declaration stated that the 2018 denial had been determined to be an error, but it did not explain why the error occurred, state that the Form I-407 was invalid, or state that USCIS would not consider the form in future applications. The form remained in Mora-Albarran’s file, and the agency updated the record so it could be considered consistently in future I-90 decisions.

The court also rejected the government’s reliance on a general USCIS policy favoring deference to a prior approval. The agency did not provide enough information about that policy, and the court noted that related guidance had changed across administrations. The government also did not show that the policy caused the 2018 denial. As a result, the court could not conclude that the policy change made recurrence impossible.

The court found the government’s argument that Mora-Albarran had successfully renewed his card three times unpersuasive. It also declined to consider the government’s statute-of-limitations argument because the government raised it for the first time in its reply.

Disposition

The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss on mootness grounds. The order did not decide the merits of Mora-Albarran’s claims or his pending summary-judgment motion. The court set a status conference and directed the parties to address the next steps in the case.