Doe v. Wolf

Background

John Doe and Jane Doe received U nonimmigrant status, commonly called U visas, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). They also received waivers of inadmissibility and later applied to become lawful permanent residents. USCIS approved Mrs. Doe’s application but did not initially decide Mr. Doe’s application.

USCIS later revoked Mr. Doe’s U visa and inadmissibility waiver, concluding that they had been erroneously approved. It also revoked Mrs. Doe’s derivative U visa and waiver. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. They challenged the revocations, the delay in deciding Mr. Doe’s application, and USCIS’s later denial of that application.

After the lawsuit began, USCIS withdrew the revocations, restored both plaintiffs’ waivers and U visas, and reopened and approved Mr. Doe’s application for adjustment of status. The opinion states that both plaintiffs were then lawful permanent residents. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that these actions made the case moot.

Mootness analysis

A federal court may decide only an ongoing case or controversy. If events during a lawsuit eliminate the dispute so that the court can no longer provide effective relief, the case is moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court considered the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge factual because they submitted evidence about USCIS’s later decisions.

The plaintiffs argued that the voluntary-cessation exception applied because USCIS had reversed its actions only after the lawsuit began and had not assured them that similar actions would not happen again. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that USCIS had undone each challenged action, that both plaintiffs were lawful permanent residents, and that the plaintiffs offered no basis beyond the earlier conduct to show that the challenged actions could reasonably be expected to recur.

The plaintiffs also argued that the case remained live because they had incurred approximately $7,000 in attorney’s fees and at least $400 in filing fees and costs. The court held that an interest in recovering attorney’s fees cannot maintain a case when no underlying controversy remains. It likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief concerning past conduct that had been reversed.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs raised a possible request for relief that would change the effective approval date of Mr. Doe’s adjustment application, potentially giving him additional time toward eligibility to apply for citizenship. The court held that this request was not properly before it because the plaintiffs had not sought it from USCIS, expressly requested it in the amended complaint, or addressed it in their briefing. The court added that the plaintiffs had not shown that this request would allow the case to proceed even if jurisdiction existed.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion also explains that Alejandro Mayorkas was substituted for former Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf because a public officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.