Mafundu v. Mayorkas
| Docket Number | 23-CV-60611-RAR |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Parties | WENDY MAFUNDU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Administrative Procedures Act Judicial Review Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief (“Motion”), [ECF No. 14].[1] The Court, having reviewed the Motion, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, [ECF No. 14], is GRANTED as explained herein.
Plaintiffs Wendy Mafundu and George Zagros filed this action to compel Defendants to issue a decision on Mafundu's pending Form I-601A. See generally Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for APA Judicial Review, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”), [ECF No. 11]. Mafundu's Form I-601A has been pending with U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) since July 9, 2021. Am. Compl. ¶ 34. Mafundu is a citizen of Zimbabwe who currently resides in Plantation, Florida with Zagros, her husband, who is a U.S. citizen. Am. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain lawful permanent resident status for Mafundu, but they allege USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudicating her Form I-601A. See Am. Compl. ¶ 50. The Court will briefly summarize the relevant immigration process Mafundu and Zagros are in the midst of navigating.
A noncitizen may obtain lawful permanent resident status through a variety of mechanisms. Relevant here, noncitizens may become lawful permanent residents by way of their familial relationship with United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i). There are several steps noncitizens must take to avail themselves of this pathway to lawful permanent resident status. To begin the process, a citizen or lawful permanent resident must file a Form I-130 on behalf of a noncitizen relative. See Am. Compl. ¶ 18. If the Form I-130 is approved, the noncitizen is then classified as an immigrant relative of the citizen or lawful permanent resident. See id. Certain noncitizens must then apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate. Am. Compl. ¶ 19.
This poses a problem for some noncitizens. Noncitizens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days are deemed inadmissible for a specified period of time following their departure or removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i). This period of inadmissibility changes depending on how long the noncitizen was unlawfully present: usually three years if the noncitizen was present for less than a year and ten years if the noncitizen was present for a year or more. Id. So, noncitizens unlawfully present in the United States for at least 180 days who must apply for a visa at an embassy or consulate face an extra hurdle. They must leave the country to apply for a visa but, because they would usually be inadmissible into the United States, they cannot return. And even if noncitizens are ultimately granted a visa, they are not entitled to enter the United States if they are otherwise deemed inadmissible. See id. § 1201(h).
But these noncitizens are not completely foreclosed from pursuing lawful permanent resident status. The Attorney General has “sole discretion” to waive a noncitizen's inadmissible status based on unlawful presence. Id. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). Two requirements must be met to qualify for a waiver. First, the noncitizen must be “the spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or” lawful permanent resident. Id. Second, the Attorney General must find that refusing the noncitizen entry “would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent” of the noncitizen. Id. Therefore, a noncitizen may apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver to leave the United States and apply for an immigrant visa more easily. See Id. This step is at the heart of this dispute.
Plaintiff Mafundu is a noncitizen who has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than 180 days. See Am. Compl. ¶ 29. On March 16, 2020, Zagros filed a Form I-130 on Mafundu's behalf, which USCIS approved on September 3, 2020. Am. Compl. ¶ 33. Mafundu then filed her Form I-601A, the relevant application to receive a provisional unlawful presence waiver, on July 9, 2021. Am. Compl. ¶ 34. USCIS has seemingly taken no action on Mafundu's application since it was filed. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35-36. Plaintiffs therefore filed this action on March 29, 2023 and their Amended Complaint on June 7, 2023. Defendants move to dismiss this case because (1) the Court does not have jurisdiction over this dispute; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A party may move to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). A challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction can either be a “facial” or “factual” attack on jurisdiction. Makro Capital of Am., Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008). A facial attack challenges the court's jurisdiction based solely on the plaintiff's allegations. Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). Factual attacks rely on matters outside of the pleadings, and the court may consider extrinsic evidence and “weigh the facts” to determine if jurisdiction exists. See Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009)). The plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction exists over a case. OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim,” but a complaint must set forth more than “labels and conclusions” or a mere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Instead, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In addition to accepting the complaint's allegations as true, the court must draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor when determining if a complaint states a claim to relief. Smith v. United States, 873 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2017). A claim to relief is plausible where the plaintiff alleges “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Ultimately, “determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Holland v. Carnival Corp., 50 F.4th 1088, 1093 (11th Cir. 2022) (alterations accepted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
Defendants first argue the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because (1) mandamus relief is not warranted; and (2) the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) contains a jurisdiction stripping provision that precludes the Court from adjudicating this matter. Because Defendants only rely on Plaintiffs' allegations, they lodge a facial attack on the Court's jurisdiction. The Court agrees with both jurisdictional arguments advanced by Defendants.
First, the Court addresses whether it has jurisdiction to grant any mandamus relief in these circumstances. It does not. The Mandamus Act gives district courts “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in the clearest and most compelling of cases.” Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). A court can only exercise jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief where “(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” See id. A plaintiff seeking mandamus relief “has the burden of demonstrating that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.” Hakki v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affs., 7 F.4th 1012, 1037 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Serrano, 655 F.3d at 1263). In other words, “a writ of mandamus ‘is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.'” Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)).
Plaintiffs have failed to establish-at the very least-the first two requirements for mandamus relief. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act. Considering these two requirements together, the proper inquiry is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated they have a clear right to have Mafundu's Form I-601A adjudicated within their preferred timeframe. See Osechas Lopez v. Mayorkas - F.Supp.3d -, 2023 WL 152640, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“[T]he Court must determine whether Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to act to adjudicate Plaintiff's I-526 petition in a certain time frame, whether general, reasonable, or even the more...
To continue reading
Request your trial