Karuppasamy v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

Karthik Karuppasamy, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Tatyana Zemskova and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The petition alleged that Zemskova defrauded Karuppasamy of more than $27,000, worked without authorization from approximately 2015 to 2016, and sent armed men to his home in July 2018. It also described disputes involving websites on which negative statements about Zemskova had been posted.

Karuppasamy sought information about Zemskova, including documents concerning money, work eligibility, business eligibility, immigration status, and an alleged asylum application. He also asked the court to stop USCIS from processing an unspecified immigration application filed by Zemskova. The court noted that the petition did not clearly identify the claims against Zemskova or USCIS and did not provide a legal basis for intervening in another person’s immigration application.

USCIS removed the case from New York County Supreme Court to federal court. USCIS moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, frivolousness, failure to comply with the federal pleading rules, and failure to state a claim. Zemskova later moved to dismiss under the federal pleading and jurisdiction rules and under New York law. Karuppasamy filed a cross-motion asking the court to deny Zemskova’s motion and separately sought a default judgment against her.

Claims Against USCIS

The court held that Karuppasamy had not established federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The petition did not show a federal question, and the court found no basis for diversity jurisdiction. The court also explained that USCIS, as a federal agency, generally has sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be sued unless the United States has clearly agreed to the suit.

Karuppasamy later referred to the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected both theories. The Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply because Karuppasamy had not alleged a negligent or wrongful act by a USCIS employee and had not shown that he pursued the required administrative process. The Administrative Procedure Act did not help because Karuppasamy identified no legally required action that USCIS had failed to take, and the statute did not give him a right to challenge another person’s immigration application.

The court also ruled that the claims against USCIS were frivolous and failed to state a claim. Karuppasamy had not identified a legal basis for ordering USCIS to stop processing Zemskova’s application. Even treating his allegation that USCIS had a duty to investigate questionable applicants as a request for a court order compelling government action, the court found that he had no clear right to the requested relief and no legal right to interfere in another person’s immigration application.

The court further held that the petition did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing the court’s jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The court dismissed the action against USCIS with prejudice and dismissed USCIS as a defendant with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile.

Claims Against Zemskova

The court granted Zemskova’s motion to dismiss. It found that Karuppasamy was not entitled to the personal information he sought and had no standing, meaning no legal right to ask the court to interfere with USCIS’s handling of Zemskova’s immigration application.

The court also applied res judicata, or claim preclusion, which prevents parties from relitigating claims that were or could have been resolved in an earlier case. The court described earlier litigation between Karuppasamy and Zemskova, including a settlement agreement in which the parties released and discharged each other from claims relating to their disputes. To the extent the current petition repeated grievances resolved in that earlier litigation, the court held that those claims were barred.

After dismissing USCIS, the court also held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against Zemskova. The parties were alleged to be New York residents, Karuppasamy had not alleged a federal question, and there was no complete diversity of citizenship. The court also found that the allegation that Zemskova committed identity fraud was a legal conclusion that did not satisfy the pleading rules. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it denied Karuppasamy leave to amend his claims against Zemskova.

Disposition

The court granted USCIS’s and Zemskova’s motions to dismiss. It denied Karuppasamy’s cross-motion. It denied his motion for default judgment against Zemskova as moot, directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions, and closed the case.