Li v. Mayorkas
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-08554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Li v. Mayorkas, Judge Oetken dismissed Li’s case without prejudice after Li stopped participating in a lawsuit seeking agency action.
Huihong Li’s case was closed after dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The dismissal did not decide whether Li was entitled to action on the Form I-130 petition, and the opinion states that the action could be refiled.
What happened
In Li v. Mayorkas, Huihong Li sought a court order requiring federal immigration officials to act on an outstanding Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. The court notified Li and Li’s attorney about filing deficiencies and later ordered a status letter.
Li did not appear or respond after filing the case in October 2021. The court found that Li had received notice that continued delay could lead to dismissal and that the delay was unreasonable.
Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the case could be filed again. He also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Li v. Mayorkas · No. 1:21-cv-08554
- James Oetken
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background Huihong Li sued Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Tim Houghton in their official capacities. Li sought a court order requiring action on an outstanding Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. The opinion states that Li and Li’s attorney were notified of deficiencies in the filing on October 19, 2021, and were invited to correct them. On August 8, 2022, the court reminded Li’s counsel to correct the petition and ordered Li to file a status letter by August 29, 2022. The court stated that Li had not appeared since filing the action in October 2021.
Court’s reasoning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the rules or a court order. The court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate because Li had been warned that further delay could result in dismissal and had caused unreasonable delay. The court also stated that dismissal without prejudice balanced the need to manage the court’s calendar with Li’s right to due process and a fair opportunity to be heard.
Disposition Judge Oetken dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and stated that it was without prejudice to refiling. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.