Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alkady v. Luna

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Wayne Division.

February 28, 2019

ALI ALKADY, SAMI ALKADI, ADEL ALKADI, and YEASSER ALKADI, Plaintiffs,
v.
CORINNA LUNA, Los Angeles Field Office Director for the United State Citizenship and Immigration Services, LEE CISNA, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, ELAINE DUKES, Acting Director of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF No. 19], and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Due to Mootness and Failure to State a Claim [ECF No. 24]. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court finds that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

         BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff's Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Complaint”) alleges the following:

         On November 15, 2000, Plaintiff Ali Alkady, who is a naturalized United States citizen, filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of each of his three adult children, Plaintiffs Adel Alkadi, Sami Alkadi, and Yasser Alkadi. According to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs “have not received any decision” for their Forms, nor have they “received any requests for additional evidence for their Forms.” (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 20-21.) The Plaintiffs allege that it is common practice for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to “retroactively allege” that requests for additional evidence have been sent to Form I-130 petitioners, and that petitioners, in turn, failed to respond. (Id. ¶ 26.) The reason for these false claims, according to the Amended Complaint, is to concoct a “supposedly legitimate basis for denying petitions under the Yemeni adjudication scheme, first implemented in 2009 ” (Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.) The Plaintiffs refer to the “Yemeni adjudication scheme” as the adjudicative process that the USCIS implemented for I-130 petitions submitted by petitioners of Yemen descent. The scheme, it is alleged, holds Yemeni petitioners and beneficiaries “to unfair and discriminatory standards and policies on account of their Muslim religion, Arab race, and/or Yemen national origin.” (Id. ¶ 54.)

         The Plaintiffs assert that this adjudicative process is to blame for the eighteen-year delay in adjudicating the Form I-130 Petitions that Ali Alkady filed in 2000. They identify the following causes of action against “All Defendants”:

• Count One: Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; 28 U.S.C. § 1651
• Count Two: Administrative Procedures Act; 5 U.S.C. § 555; 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
• Count Three: Nondiscrimination Clause of INA; 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)
• Count Four: Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process
• Count Five: Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process
• Count Six: First Amendment Establishment Clause
• Count Seven: Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights; 42 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.