Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Mohammad Tayeb, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on April 3, 2026, seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancée, which had been pending since January 27, 2025—over 14 months without decision. The complaint named USCIS, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, a U.S. Senator, and the Director of the California Service Center as defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the petition had been approved on June 12, 2026, rendering the action moot. Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply to correct the record regarding a proposed supplemental complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. On the merits, the Court recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint without leave to amend. The Court held that because USCIS approved the I-129F petition on June 12, 2026, the specific relief sought—adjudication of the petition—had been granted, eliminating the live case or controversy required for Article III jurisdiction. The mandamus claim was therefore moot. Because the mootness defect could not be cured by amending the complaint, dismissal without leave to amend was warranted. The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned District Judge for final approval, with notice of the 14-day objection period.
The ruling was framed as findings and recommendations rather than a final dismissal. Tayeb had 14 days after service to object, and any reply was due 14 days after service of objections. The assigned district judge therefore retained responsibility for deciding whether to adopt the proposed dismissal and close the case. For practitioners, the requested remedy controls: agency action can moot a complaint seeking only adjudication, while a distinct continuing injury would need its own jurisdictional basis, supporting facts, and requested relief.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus action compelling agency adjudication becomes moot once the agency completes the requested adjudication, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff's concession that the I-129F petition was approved on June 12, 2026, was fatal to the mandamus claim.
- Where a jurisdictional defect (mootness) cannot be cured by additional factual allegations, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate.
- Pro se plaintiffs are entitled to liberal construction of pleadings, but courts need not accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions.
- The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are subject to de novo review by the District Judge upon timely objection.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the well-established principle that mandamus relief is unavailable when the agency has already performed the specific act sought by the plaintiff. The ruling illustrates the strict application of Article III mootness doctrine in immigration delay cases: once the underlying benefit is granted, the court loses jurisdiction to hear the delay claim, even if the delay was allegedly unreasonable. The dismissal without leave to amend underscores that jurisdictional defects rooted in mootness are generally incurable by amendment. The case also demonstrates procedural management of pro se litigation, including the grant of a sur-reply to correct the record and the denial of a supplemental complaint as premature while a dispositive motion was pending.