Altowaiti v. Nielchild

Background

The plaintiffs were seventeen families of Yemeni descent, including Yemeni nationals and their United States citizen and lawful permanent resident relatives. They alleged that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services had unlawfully delayed adjudicating 40 petitions for relatives filed between July 24, 2013, and June 26, 2017. They alleged that the delays were systemic, purposeful, and intended to target Muslim immigration, including through higher proof requirements, delayed interviews, repeated requests for evidence and DNA testing, requests for immaterial evidence, and enhanced security checks for minor children.

The complaint asserted claims under the Mandamus Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Constitution's substantive and procedural due-process protections. The plaintiffs initially sought an order requiring the government to adjudicate the petitions and issue final decisions.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They informed the court that 39 of the 40 petitions had been adjudicated. Thirty were approved and nine were denied. The defendants argued that claims about the 39 decided petitions were moot because an order requiring adjudication would no longer have a direct effect. The defendants argued that the remaining petition was not outside normal processing times and that no immigrant visas were currently available for it.

The court agreed that the claims concerning the 39 adjudicated petitions were moot and dismissed them. It also dismissed the claims concerning the remaining petition. The opinion states that the plaintiffs did not address the defendants' arguments about that petition in their opposition and therefore had waived those arguments.

Motion to Amend

The plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint on behalf of five Yemeni families, challenging the nine petition denials as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The proposed amended complaint also sought declaratory relief and asserted procedural and substantive due-process claims.

The defendants argued that amendment would prejudice them and would change the nature of the case. The court rejected that argument. It noted that discovery had not occurred, no trial date had been set, no summary-judgment motion had been filed, and no final judgment had been entered. The court also found that the plaintiffs had acted promptly after learning of the denials and that the original complaint had provided notice of their challenge to an alleged policy involving delays and denials of immigration benefits for Yemeni nationals.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. The court noted that the defendants had suggested that some proposed claims might be legally futile, but had not provided legal grounds or arguments allowing the court to evaluate that issue.

Disposition

The court granted both the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion to amend. It directed the plaintiffs to file the amended complaint by May 19, 2020, and directed the clerk to terminate the two motions.