Torres v. United States Department of State

Background

Jorge A. Torres, Jr., representing himself, filed a petition under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. That law allows a court to order a federal officer or agency to perform a duty owed to a person. Torres sued the United States Department of State over an updated passport application.

Torres alleged that he married in Massachusetts on September 20, 2018, changed his last name to “Bar-Levy” for religious reasons, and updated his Social Security record and New York enhanced driver’s license. On September 25, 2018, he applied for an expedited passport bearing the new name because he planned to travel to Israel for religious reasons. He alleged that officials ridiculed and questioned him about his name and religious intentions, seized his documents, placed the application under investigation, and prevented him from traveling that day.

Torres sought an order requiring the Department to issue the passport. He also asked the court to order the Department to stop alleged unconstitutional and illegal religious persecution, certify that the government had persecuted him and his family since 2010, and allow him to apply for asylum in Israel or another country. The opinion also describes two earlier related proceedings involving passport or citizenship documents for Torres’s children; one ended through a stipulated dismissal, and the other was dismissed as moot.

The Department moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). The Department argued that Torres’s passport request was moot because he had received a passport in approximately late November or early December 2018. It also argued that the other requested forms of relief lacked a legally proper basis. Torres did not file an opposition.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a claim is moot when events make it impossible for the court to provide effective relief. When a person asks a court to order a federal official to perform an act that the official has already performed, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—its legal power to decide the dispute.

The court found that Torres had received the passport he sought. Because the court could not order the Department to issue a passport that had already been issued, that request was moot. The court also found no ongoing harm from the alleged delay. Torres had not shown that the dispute fit the exception for matters capable of repetition but likely to end before review. The court described any future passport-related injury as speculative.

The court separately rejected the requests concerning past persecution and asylum. A request that the court certify past persecution did not seek an order requiring a federal agency to perform a duty owed to Torres and therefore was not proper relief under the Mandamus Act. To the extent Torres sought a declaration about past wrongdoing, the court found that such a declaration would not resolve a live legal dispute or provide compensation for past acts. The court also held that it was an improper venue for Torres’s request to apply for asylum in Israel.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the Department’s motion to dismiss. The court stated that the jurisdictional defect did not appear curable, so allowing Torres to amend would be futile. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, enter judgment for the Department, close the case, and mail Torres a copy of the opinion and order.