Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02750/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02750-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2750

___________

Fatima Mohamed, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Rosemary L. Melville, District *

Director, Atlanta District, United *

States Citizenship and Immigration *

Services (USCIS); District Director/ *

Field Office Director, Atlanta District, * Appeal from the United States

United States Immigration and * District Court for the 

Customs Enforcement (USICE); * District of Minnesota.

Denise Frazier, District Director, *

St. Paul District, United States * [UNPUBLISHED]

Citizenship and Immigration Services *

(USCIS); Alberto Gonzales, U.S. *

Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, *

Secretary, Department of Homeland *

Security; Emilio T. Gonzales, Director, *

United States Citizenship and *

Immigration Services (USCIS), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2008

Filed: April 18, 2008

___________

Appellate Case: 07-2750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425102
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fatima Mohamed, a Somali citizen, appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of her

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Mohamed filed a declaratory judgment action seeking an order that the

defendants join in her request before the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to

reopen her removal proceedings. In her complaint, Mohamed alleged that she entered

the United States without inspection on January 25, 2000. Shortly thereafter, she

applied for asylum, but was denied, and the BIA affirmed that denial. While her

asylum application was pending, the Attorney General granted Mohamed Temporary

Protected Status (TPS) due to the ongoing conflicts in Somalia. The BIA entered its

final order of removal on April 1, 2003, however this removal order was suspended

because of Mohamed’s TPS. 

On August 11, 2004, Mohamed married Abdinur Omar Rage, a United States

citizen. Rage subsequently filed an Alien Relative Petition, and the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the petition on January 20,

2005. By virtue of the petition, Mohamed alleges that she is eligible to apply for

Permanent Resident status. Under federal regulations, a motion to reopen in any case

previously subject to a final decision must be made within 90 days of that decision

unless “[a]greed upon by all parties jointly filed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(iii).

USCIS refused to join the motion, concluding that Mohamed was not “statutorily

eligible to apply for adjustment of status under § 245 of the Immigration and

Appellate Case: 07-2750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425102
-3-

Nationality Act.” Mohamed then filed her motion to reopen which the BIA denied as

untimely. This action followed. 

The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, holding that the government was entitled to sovereign immunity

except in cases where Congress had consented to suit. The district court determined

that none of Mohamed’s claimed grounds for subject matter jurisdiction were valid

waivers of sovereign immunity, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear

her claim. 

We are obligated to conduct de novo review of dismissals granted under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hastings

v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). We reject

Mohamed’s argument that various federal laws establish jurisdiction over her claim.

We agree with the district court that, because the decision of whether to join in the

motion to reopen is discretionary, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.

§ 701, et seq., does not vest federal courts with jurisdiction to hear Mohamed’s claim.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii) (90-day time limitation does not apply to motions to

reopen if agreed upon by all parties and jointly filed); Tamenut v. Mukasey, No. 05-

4418, 2008 WL 637617, at *3-5 (8th Cir. March 11, 2008) (en banc) (per curiam)

(where BIA retained discretion on whether to reopen proceedings on its own motion,

APA did not vest courts with jurisdiction to hear appeal of that decision). Further, the

immigration statutes do not confer jurisdiction in this case, and Mohamed’s attempts

to find jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction, the Declaratory Judgment Act,

the Equal Access to Justice Act, and the Mandamus Act, are likewise unavailing. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mohamed’s action. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2750 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425102