Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAJIBULLAH HAMIDI, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01992-BTM-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS 14 [ECF NO. 9] 15 NATALIE A. BAKER, Chargé d’Affaires, U.S. Embassy in Pakistan; and 16 MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of the U.S. 17 Department of State, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Currently before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9 (“Defs.’ 21 Mot.”)) the Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants’ 22 motion is GRANTED. 23 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff, Najibullah Hamidi, is a native of Afghanistan who was admitted to the 25 United States in September 2021. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), at ¶ 2.) Hamidi fled 26 Afghanistan with his two minor nephews after his family was threatened by the Taliban 27 due to his brother’s work for the National Directorate of Security. (Id. at ¶ 2.) At the time, 28 Hamidi’s wife was unable to leave Afghanistan with her husband because the hospital 1 where she was employed as a nurse was under lockdown. (Id.) She was eventually able 2 to escape to Pakistan where she is presently located. (Id.) 3 In August 2023, Hamidi filed a Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition 4 (commonly referred to as a “follow-to-join” or “FTJ” petition) with the U.S. Citizenship 5 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on behalf of his spouse, so she could join him in the 6 United States. (Compl. at ¶¶ 19–21.) 7 Hamidi filed his Complaint on August 4, 2025, seeking an order of mandamus from 8 this Court directing the Defendants to process his wife’s then-pending application. The 9 Complaint alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., 10 for unreasonable delay in processing his spouse’s application and for failing to carry out 11 the Defendants’ adjudicative functions. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing 12 that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the case is moot because the Defendants 13 have already completed their processing of Hamidi’s wife’s application and there is no 14 longer any relief for the Court to grant. (Defs.’ Mot. at 4–5.) 15 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 16 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 17 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Article III of the United States Constitution limits 18 courts to hear actions involving “actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.” Deakins 19 v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). A case that “loses its character as a present live 20 controversy” is moot. Allard v. DeLorean, 884 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 1989). If a case no 21 longer presents a controversy over which the court may grant effective relief, the court 22 lacks jurisdiction. See Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244–45 (9th Cir. 23 1988). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 The Defendants argue that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot because there is no relief 26 for the Court to grant on the Complaint. Hamidi’s Complaint was filed on August 4, 27 2025 and asks this Court to compel the Defendants to process his wife’s I-730 application 28 within fifteen calendar days or as soon as reasonably possible. (Compl. at ¶ 37.) On 1 || August 22, 2025, the Defendants issued a decision letter informing Hamidi’s wife of its 2 || determination that she is ineligible for travel to the United States under INA § 212(f). 3 ||(MTD at 4.) Consequently, the action Hamidi seeks in his Complaint has already been 4 ||completed. Therefore, there is no longer a present, live controversy and this Court lacks 5 || jurisdiction. 6 In his Opposition, Hamidi contends that the Defendants have impermissibly denied 7 || his wife’s application under INA § 212(f) because the decision was based on the 8 || allegedly unlawful Presidential Proclamation 10949. Even if Hamidi’s wife’s application 9 || was refused on unlawful grounds, that is not the basis for his Complaint. He has only 10 || pleaded that the Defendants have unreasonably delayed in processing his wife’s 11 || application, which has now been completed. If Hamidi intends to pursue a new legal 12 || theory challenging the lawfulness of Presidential Proclamation 10949 as applied to his 13 || wife’s case, then he must do so in an amended complaint. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For these reasons, the Court finds that Hamidi’s Complaint is moot. The 16 Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Hamidi’s claims are DISMISSED 17 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Hamidi shall have fifteen (15) days from the entering of this 18 || order to file an amended complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 18, 2026 Tid) Jusek 3 Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 □ □□