Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abdullah Saleh ALSHEIKH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MNUNCHIN ; John A. Koskinen, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16609
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 4, 2017
    Abdullah Saleh Alsheikh, Saudi, Arabia, Pro Se.
    Cynthia Lewis Stier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, Richard Caldarone, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Steven Mnuchin has been substituted for his predecessor, Jacob J. Lew, as Secretary of the Treasury under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       yjjg panei unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   .MEMORANDUM

Abdullah Saleh Alsheikh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act violates his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Al-sheikh’s action because Alsheikh failed to allege facts sufficient to establish an injury in fact as required for Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (elements of Article III standing); see also Clapper v. Amnesty Inti USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (“[Threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and ... allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.