Laryea v. Guillod
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Laryea v. Guillod, Judge Swain denied Laryea’s mandamus petition and dismissed the case seeking immigration-status adjustment.
Henry Kpani Laryea, who sought adjustment of his immigration status, remains subject to the ongoing immigration proceedings described in the opinion; the federal action against Ada Guillod, Barbara Nelson, and the Department of Homeland Security was dismissed.
What happened
In Laryea v. Guillod, Henry Kpani Laryea, representing himself, asked the court to require immigration officials to grant him lawful permanent resident status as the spouse of a diversity-visa lottery winner. His immigration proceedings were still ongoing.
The court treated his request as a petition for a court order requiring a federal agency or officer to perform a legal duty. It said Laryea had not shown that he had a clear and undisputed right to the requested status or that this extraordinary remedy was appropriate while his immigration case remained pending.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the mandamus petition, declined to allow an amended filing because the defects could not be fixed, and dismissed the petition. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Laryea v. Guillod · No. 1:24-cv-02695
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
Henry Kpani Laryea, appearing without a lawyer, sued Ada Guillod, Barbara Nelson, and the Department of Homeland Security. He argued that, as the spouse of a 2022 diversity-visa lottery winner, he was entitled to adjustment of immigration status and a lawful permanent resident card.
Laryea came to the United States on an F-1 visa in November 1998. Removal proceedings began in 2011. In 2022, he married Samantha de Klerk, a South African citizen who had won the 2022 diversity-visa lottery. Laryea then applied for adjustment of status as her derivative spouse. His wife later became a lawful permanent resident.
Laryea had continuing proceedings before an Immigration Judge. At an April 4, 2024 hearing, a Department of Homeland Security attorney argued that Laryea was not eligible for adjustment based on the 2022 lottery because that fiscal year had ended. Laryea disagreed and filed this federal action.
Court’s analysis
Because Laryea sought an order requiring federal officials or an agency to perform a duty, the court treated his application as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an extraordinary court remedy. To obtain it, a petitioner must show that no other adequate remedy is available, that the requested right is clear and undisputed, and that the remedy is appropriate under the circumstances.
The court concluded that Laryea did not satisfy these requirements. His immigration proceedings were ongoing, and the Immigration Judge had not yet made the relevant determination. If Laryea disagreed with that determination, the court stated that he could pursue any available appeal rights. His filing therefore did not establish a clear and undisputed right to adjustment of status or show that mandamus relief was appropriate.
Disposition
The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. It declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. In its conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.