Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05345/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05345-0/pdf.json

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

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 11, 2001 Decided December 28, 2001

No. 00-5345

Shubing Liu, M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

( 99cv02511)

Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr. argued the cause and filed the

briefs for appellant.

Fred E. Haynes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause

for appellees. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence and Michael J.

Ryan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

USCA Case #00-5345 Document #647789 Filed: 12/28/2001 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Sentelle, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: Dr. Shubing Liu appeals from

the judgment of the district court dismissing his action for

judicial review of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's denial of his second preference employment-based immigration petition. Because Dr. Liu has been granted first

preference employment-based immigrant status, we hold that

his case is moot.

Dr. Liu, a Chinese citizen engaged in medical research in

the United States, filed a second preference employmentbased petition (an "EB-2" petition) pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

s 1153(b)(2), which allows visas to be granted to aliens of

exceptional ability and aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees. Petitions for EB-2 status

generally must include both a job offer and a certification

from the Department of Labor. See 8 C.F.R. s 204.5(k).

Although Dr. Liu had a job offer from the University of

Pittsburgh School of Medicine, he lacked the requisite labor

certification. Therefore, Dr. Liu sought a waiver pursuant to

8 U.S.C. s 1153(b)(2)(B)(i), which permits the INS, via authority delegated from the Attorney General, to waive the job

offer and labor certification requirements if such a waiver is

found to be in the "national interest." See Kooritzky v.

Reich, 17 F.3d 1509, 1510 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

In November 1998, the INS denied Dr. Liu's application for

a waiver, finding that a waiver would not be in the national

interest. On Dr. Liu's administrative appeal, the INS Administrative Appeals Unit affirmed. Dr. Liu then filed the

present complaint. The district court refused to hear the

case, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned

that the INS's decision not to grant Dr. Liu a national

interest waiver was discretionary and that the Immigration

and Nationality Act precludes judicial review of discretionary

decisions. See 8 U.S.C. s 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (precluding judicial

review of "any other decision or action of the Attorney

General the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General, other

USCA Case #00-5345 Document #647789 Filed: 12/28/2001 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title").

The court also concluded that review was not available under

the Administrative Procedure Act.

The case is now moot, so the government claims. Mootness goes to our jurisdiction, see Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v.

Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (per curiam). It is therefore

an optional ground of decision, and one we have decided to

examine first in view of the more complicated issues

s 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) presents. The question of mootness arises

as follows. After the INS denied Dr. Liu a national interest

waiver and EB-2 status, he filed a first preference employment-based immigration petition (an "EB-1" petition) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s 1153(b)(1)(B), which allows visas to be

granted to outstanding professors and researchers. The INS

granted Dr. Liu EB-1 status; his adjustment application for

legal permanent residence status is now pending.

Dr. Liu offers four reasons why his case is not moot.

First, he asserts that he would be able to switch jobs more

easily if he had been granted EB-2 rather than EB-1 status.

As against this, the government points to the American

Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act, arguing

that it allows Dr. Liu to switch jobs as long as the new job is

in the "same or similar occupational classification." See 8

U.S.C. s 1154(j) (providing that a petition for individual immigrant status that remains unadjudicated for 180 days will

remain valid with respect to a new job "if the new job is in the

same or a similar occupational classification as the job for

which the petition was filed") (emphasis added). Dr. Liu

fears that the INS might read s 1154(j)'s use of the phrase

"same or similar occupational classification" narrowly, thus

limiting his ability to change jobs while his application for

legal permanent residence status is pending. He contends

that if he had been granted a national interest waiver and

EB-2 status, then he would be free to switch jobs more easily

because he would only have to show that his new job remained in the "national interest."

The trouble is Dr. Liu has given us no reason for supposing

that he might change jobs before the INS acts on his

USCA Case #00-5345 Document #647789 Filed: 12/28/2001 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

application for legal permanent residence status. At oral

argument, we invited his attorney to remedy this factual gap

with either representations or affidavits. He did not do so.

To the contrary, Dr. Liu's supplemental brief states that it is

"unlikely" that he will stray far from biological research. See

Appellant's Supplemental Brief at 6. In short, all we have is

the conjectural possibility that Dr. Liu might want to switch

jobs and that the INS might construe s 1154(j) narrowly so

as to prevent Dr. Liu from changing jobs. This simply is not

enough. See American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. FCC, 129 F.3d 625, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1997). To "save

a case from mootness the ongoing injury must be more than a

'remote possibility,' not 'conjectural,' more than 'speculative.' " Id. (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 507

(1975)).

Second, Dr. Liu claims that if he leaves his job at the

University of Pittsburgh, INS procedures would require that

he wait for an interview with an immigration officer, which

would delay the processing of his green card application.

This argument too--as Dr. Liu admits in his supplemental

brief--is based entirely on speculation. Dr. Liu also forgets

that under the INS's I-485 Standard Operating Procedure,

he would have to wait for an interview even if he had been

granted a national interest waiver and EB-2 status. See I485 Operating Procedure at 7-3.24.

Third, Dr. Liu asserts that his claim for attorney's fees is

sufficient to save the case from mootness. The law is otherwise. The "mere fact that continued adjudication would

provide a remedy for an injury that is only the byproduct of

the suit itself does not mean that an injury is cognizable

under Art. III." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 70-71

(1986). Contrast Washington Hosp. Ctr. Nat'l Rehabilitation

Hosp. v. Collier, 947 F.2d 1498, 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding

that a claim for attorney's fees was sufficient to save the

breach of contract case from mootness because attorney's

fees were an element of the damages claim, not a mere

byproduct of the suit). Hence, an interest in attorney's fees

"is, of course, insufficient to create an Article III case or

controversy where none exists on the merits of the underlyUSCA Case #00-5345 Document #647789 Filed: 12/28/2001 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ing claim." Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 480

(1990).

Fourth and last, Dr. Liu contends that because he will have

to continue to deal with the INS as his green card application

is processed, his claim is "capable of repetition yet evading

review" and therefore is not moot. See S. Pac. Terminal Co.

v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). This argument also fails.

"By 'capable of repetition' the Supreme Court now means a

'reasonable expectation that the same complaining party

would be subjected to the same action again.' " Christian

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v.

District of Columbia, 972 F.2d 365, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

(quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (per

curiam)). Since he has been granted EB-1 status, it is

extremely unlikely that Dr. Liu would be subjected to the

same challenged action (i.e., a denial of a national interest

waiver) in the future.

In short, Dr. Liu would not be any better off if he had been

granted a national interest waiver and EB-2 status rather

than EB-1 immigrant status. A live controversy has ceased

to exist. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district

court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, we

affirm on the ground that the complaint is moot and do not

reach the issue whether review is precluded by 8 U.S.C.

s 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-5345 Document #647789 Filed: 12/28/2001 Page 5 of 5