Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2023

Alawadi v. Bitter

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:22-cv-05256
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ImmigrationMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alawadi v. Bitter, Judge Oetken granted the Government’s motion to dismiss as moot after the State Department adjudicated the visa application.

Who this affects

Mohammad Kamel Alawadi and Majd Mohammad Kamel Alawadi, whose visa-adjudication action was dismissed, and the Government defendants named in the opinion.

What happened

In Alawadi v. Bitter, Mohammad Kamel Alawadi and Majd Mohammad Kamel Alawadi asked the court to require the State Department to adjudicate a visa application.

The Government moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot because the visa application had already been adjudicated. The plaintiffs did not respond, and the Government submitted documentary evidence showing that the State Department processed the application on September 28, 2022.

Judge James Oetken ruled that the adjudication made the plaintiffs’ claims moot. He granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alawadi v. Bitter · No. 1:22-cv-05256
Judge
James Oetken
Date
June 16, 2023

Background

Mohammad Kamel Alawadi and Majd Mohammad Kamel Alawadi brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking an order requiring the United States Department of State to adjudicate a visa application. The defendants included Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Rena Bitter, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Visa Services Julie M. Stufft, Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. The opinion refers to these defendants collectively as the Government.

Motion to dismiss

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the case was moot because the consular office had already adjudicated the visa application. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion within the required period or during the months that followed. The court reminded them on May 24, 2023, and June 8, 2023, that failure to respond would result in the motion being treated as unopposed and the case being dismissed.

The Government submitted documentary evidence stating that the State Department adjudicated the visa application on September 28, 2022. The plaintiffs did not contest that evidence.

Ruling

The court held that adjudicating the visa application mooted the plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring adjudication, even if the result was not what the plaintiffs preferred. The court therefore granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. The Clerk was directed to close the relevant docket entry and the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.