Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00143/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOLMAZ KHEIRAVAR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07 CV 0143 JM (LSP)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

On January 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed the present action against Defendants, various federal

immigration officials, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Plaintiff, an alien, seeks a writ of mandamus

ordering Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for permanent residence without delay.

Plaintiff also seeks an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Pending before the court is Defendants’

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the

motion. After carefully considering the parties’ papers, the court finds that this case is not ripe for

adjudication and therefore does not decide whether venue is proper or whether Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The following allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the motion. Experimental Eng'g

v. United Technologies, 614 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Iran

who resides in the Southern District of California. On about September 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Form

I-485 application for permanent residence with Defendants. Although the complaint alleges that

Case 3:07-cv-00143-JM-LSP Document 6 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0143

Defendants have already approved the Form I-140 visa petition of Plaintiffs’ husband, Shahram

Mahdavi, Comp. ¶ 4, Plaintiff’s opposition papers provide that Mahdavi’s petition has not yet been

resolved and is the subject of a separate lawsuit pending in this district. Oppo. at 8; see Mahdavi v.

Chertoff, 06-cv-2716-DMS-NLS. Over the past year, Plaintiff inquired about the status of her

application, inquiries to which Defendants have made no satisfactory response. Plaintiff is informed

and believed that her application is being subject to a security background check and that Defendants

have taken no action on her application during the past year. Plaintiff, having exhausted her

administrative remedies, brings the present action on the ground that “Defendants’ refusal to act in

this case is, as a matter of law, arbitrary and not in accordance with the law and regulations.” Comp.

¶ 9. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(b)(1) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In

a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving

jurisdiction. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 926, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). The court must treat all factual

allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Experimental

Eng'g, 614 F.2d at 1245; see Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995). However, the

court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual

allegations. Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Western Mining

Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Claims should not be dismissed on the pleadings

“unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Amfac Mortgage

Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., 583 F.2d 426, 429 (9th Cir. 1978). 

III. DISCUSSION

An action is unripe, and therefore no federal subject matter jurisdiction will lie, when the

action involves contingent future events that may or may not occur. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agr.

Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985). The ripeness doctrine’s rationale “is to prevent the courts,

through premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements[.]” Abbott

Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967). Whether a controversy is ripe depends on the

Case 3:07-cv-00143-JM-LSP Document 6 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv0143

“fitness of issues for judicial decision” and the “hardship to the parties of withholding court

consideration.” Id. at 149.

Here, Plaintiff asks the court to order Defendants to adjudicate her application for permanent

resident status. The parties agree, however, that Plaintiff’s application cannot be adjudicated until her

husband’s pending petition for adjustment of status is resolved. See Mot. at 5; Oppo. at 8. Plaintiff’s

application is wholly dependent on the outcome of her husband’s petition. Therefore, the issues in

this case are not fit for judicial decision, nor is there any evidence that the parties would suffer

hardship were the court to withhold its consideration. Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149. Although

Plaintiff invites the court to stay this action pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s husband’s case, the

court declines the invitation. The better course is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice rather

than to stay the action in the hypothetical event that Plaintiff’s claim will someday mature into a ripe

controversy. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she must do so no later

than fourteen (14) days after this order is entered. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will

result in this case being terminated and any further pleadings must be filed as a new action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Case 3:07-cv-00143-JM-LSP Document 6 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3