Mohamed v. Jaddou

Background

Rabi Awil Mohamed came to the United States from Ethiopia as a refugee in 2015. He filed I-730 petitions in August 2016 seeking derivative refugee status for his wife and two oldest sons. His wife and sons remained in an Ethiopian refugee camp. USCIS requested additional relationship documents in 2021 and approved the petitions in May 2023, after Mohamed had filed this lawsuit. USCIS then sent the petitions to the Department of State for processing in Ethiopia. Mohamed alleged that his family still had not received a final determination that they were eligible to travel.

Mohamed sued Ur M. Jaddou, in her official capacity as USCIS Director, and Rena Bitter, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. He sought an order requiring the agencies to adjudicate the petitions. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Mootness

The defendants argued that the claims against Jaddou were moot because USCIS had approved the petitions and could take no further action. Mootness means that circumstances have changed so that a court can no longer provide effective relief.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that the I-730 process has two phases: USCIS first decides whether to approve the petition, and then USCIS or the Department of State makes travel-related determinations, depending on where the family members are located. Because Mohamed’s family was in Ethiopia, where USCIS did not maintain a field office, USCIS had sent the petitions to the Department of State.

The court concluded that USCIS retained control over the entire I-730 adjudication process until the petitions were denied or travel authorization was issued. Neither event had occurred. The court therefore held that the claims against Jaddou were not moot. It also stated that USCIS could not avoid its responsibilities by transferring part of the process to the Department of State.

Failure to State a Claim

The defendants separately argued that Mohamed’s unreasonable-delay claim against Bitter failed because the Department of State had received the petitions only a few months earlier. That argument depended on treating the claims against Jaddou as moot.

Because the court found that the claims against Jaddou were not moot, it treated the delay as beginning when Mohamed filed the petitions, more than seven years earlier. The court noted that other courts had found substantially shorter delays unreasonable. It held that Mohamed had alleged enough facts to maintain an unreasonable-delay claim against both Jaddou and Bitter.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 12]. The ruling did not finally decide whether the agencies had unreasonably delayed the petitions; it allowed Mohamed’s claims to continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage.