Assaidi v. Wolf

Background

Five families of Yemeni descent sued federal immigration officials. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens and a lawful permanent resident who had filed petitions for relatives, along with the relatives who were the beneficiaries of those petitions. They alleged that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had improperly denied their I-130 petitions, which establish qualifying family relationships as the first step toward obtaining an immigrant visa. They also alleged discriminatory policies targeting Yemeni beneficiaries and Yemeni Muslim immigration, including heightened proof requirements, delays, requests for DNA evidence, and enhanced security checks for infants.

The operative complaint asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Constitution’s substantive and procedural due process protections. The defendants moved to dismiss the El Naham and Algomai Families’ claims and to divide the Altowaiti, Assaidi, and Al Sormi Families’ claims into three separate actions. The plaintiffs opposed dismissal and sought permission to amend the complaint to challenge delay in deciding the Algomai Family’s appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Dismissal of Claims

The court dismissed the El Naham Family’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because USCIS had approved that family’s I-130 petitions on February 7, 2020. The plaintiffs conceded that approval made their claims moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve.

The court also dismissed the Algomai Family’s claims, but under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The Algomai Family’s USCIS denials were being appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and those appeals remained pending. The court explained that the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires final agency action before review. It held that this final-action requirement concerns whether the plaintiffs have a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs did not dispute the defendants’ argument that the complaint failed to state a claim, the court treated that issue as conceded and dismissed the Algomai Family’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court noted that it was not deciding whether a USCIS denial of an I-130 petition is final while an appeal remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Request to Amend

The Algomai Family sought to amend the complaint to challenge the alleged delay in deciding its Board of Immigration Appeals appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act. The court denied leave to amend because the proposed claims would be futile, meaning they could not succeed even if added to the complaint.

The court reasoned that USCIS had already denied the I-130 petitions, so it could not order USCIS to take an action it had already taken. The pending appeal was before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Department of Justice, while the defendants were officials of the Department of Homeland Security. Because the defendants did not control the appeal and had no duty to decide it, the proposed delay claims could not proceed against them.

Severance

The court granted the defendants’ motion to sever the remaining claims into three separate actions: one for the Altowaiti Family, one for the Assaidi Family, and one for the Al Sormi Family. The plaintiffs agreed that the actions should be severed. The court directed each group to file an amended complaint limited to claims arising from the I-130 petitions submitted for that family’s relatives. The amended complaints were due August 3, 2021, and defendants’ responses were due October 4, 2021.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion was granted, and the plaintiffs’ counter-motion for leave to amend was denied. The Algomai and El Naham Families were dismissed from the suit. The remaining families’ claims were severed into three actions. The court did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against Yemeni beneficiaries or violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.