Vithanage v. Garland
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-03818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vinthanage v. Garland, Judge Liman ordered defendants to report on possible mootness after USCIS approved the plaintiff’s Form I-485.
Suni Biyawala Vinthanage and the federal immigration officials named as defendants, including the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the New York District Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
What happened
Suni Biyawala Vinthanage brought a case seeking court-ordered action against federal immigration officials. The defendants appeared and received extensions to respond, but they had not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint by January 29, 2024.
In seeking their second extension, the defendants said that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had approved Vinthanage’s Form I-485. They said they wanted time to discuss an informal resolution and, if necessary, prepare a motion arguing that the case had become moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to decide.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not dismiss the case in this order. He ordered the defendants to file a letter by February 7, 2024, describing the case’s status and addressing whether the court must dismiss it as moot because mootness affects the court’s authority to hear the case.
The detailed version
- Vithanage v. Garland · No. 1:23-cv-03818
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
Suni Biyawala Vinthanage filed the action on May 7, 2023, in the nature of mandamus, a request for court-ordered government action. The defendants are Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States; Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Andrea Quarantillo, the District Director of the New York District Office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The defendants appeared on June 8,
- The court granted their request for an extension to respond to the complaint until November 29,
- On November 27, 2023, they requested another extension, until December 29,
- They stated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had approved Vinthanage’s Form I-485 and sought time to discuss an informal resolution or prepare an anticipated motion to dismiss the case as moot. The court granted that extension, but the defendants still had not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint as of this order.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the defendants to file a letter no later than February 7, 2024, describing the status of the case and addressing whether the court must dismiss it as moot. The court cited the rule that mootness is not merely a defense that defendants may waive; instead, it deprives a court of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the dispute.
This order did not itself dismiss the case, rule on a motion to dismiss, or decide whether the case was moot. It required a status report and briefing on that issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.