Diakite v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

Diakite filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in January 2023. A writ of mandamus is a court order requiring a government agency to perform a required act. She sought an order requiring United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to process or grant her application to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The application was described as having been filed in 2011, although the agency disputed whether a Form I-485 application had actually been submitted then.

After the lawsuit began, the agency interviewed Diakite and, on May 16, 2023, adjusted her status to lawful permanent resident. After receiving her green card, Diakite complained that the issuance date was incorrect and inconsistent with agency policy. The agency then issued a Notice of Intent to Rescind Permanent Residence. The notice stated that she could submit a written response or request a hearing before an immigration judge. The opinion states that Diakite had not exhausted the available administrative remedies concerning that notice.

Rulings

The agency moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the mandamus petition had become moot. The court agreed. It explained that when a federal agency has already taken the action that a mandamus petition seeks to compel, the request for that relief is moot. The court held that the agency had processed Diakite’s application and adjusted her status, so the relief requested in the petition was no longer needed.

The court rejected Diakite’s arguments that the later notice made the status adjustment merely tentative, that the petition also sought correction of the green card’s date, or that the notice was issued to penalize her for filing the lawsuit. The court stated that the notice did not itself terminate the previously granted status adjustment, that the petition did not request correction of the card’s date, and that the record did not support the retaliation allegation.

The court did not consider Diakite’s challenges to the validity of the notice because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies or identified an applicable exception. It also declined to grant leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the jurisdictional defects could not be cured by rewriting the petition. The court further stated that a possible claim under the Administrative Procedure Act would not solve the problem because the relevant requirements for review had not been met.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. The petition was dismissed with prejudice, judgment was entered for the respondent, and the case was terminated.