UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number: 22-23280-CIV-MARTINEZ

RAORTO ARIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UR MENDOZA JADDOU et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE came before this Court on Defendants U.S. Citizenship & Immigration 

Services (“USCIS”) Director, Ur Medoza Jaddou, USCIS Miami Field Office Director, Linda 

Swacina, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas’

Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), (ECF No. 7). This Court reviewed the Motion, pertinent portions 

of the record, and applicable law and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, after 

careful consideration, the Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED for the 

reasons set forth herein.

By this action, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Plaintiff requests

review of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ decision to deny his I-485 Application 

for Adjustment of Status under Section 1 of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act (“CRAA”). 

(Compl. ¶¶ 1–3.) USCIS issued a decision dated May 1, 2019, determining that Plaintiff was

inadmissible or statutorily ineligible to adjust his status due to, among other reasons, controlled 

substance violations. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges these violations cannot serve as the basis for his 

ineligibility because they have been vacated by a circuit court. (Id. ¶ 15.)

Defendants moved to dismiss arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 

Case 1:22-cv-23280-JEM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

review actions taken by the federal government because Plaintiff failed to plead a waiver of 

sovereign immunity. (Mot. at 2.) Defendants assert that no statute in this case waives sovereign 

immunity. (Id. at 4.) Specifically, Defendants point out that the APA does not apply here because

the CRAA places discretion in the hands of the Attorney General and under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), 

the APA does not apply where “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” (Id. at 

4.)

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion. Under Local Rule 7.1(c) failure to file a 

response “may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.” “Indeed, the 

Eleventh Circuit has made clear that failure by a plaintiff to respond to a motion to dismiss 

argument constitutes an abandonment of that claim.” Hall v. BAC Home Loans, No. 2:12-cv-3720, 

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71645, at *17–18 (N.D. Ala. May 21, 2013) (citing Coal. for the Abolition 

of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000) for the 

proposition that “failure to brief and argue [an] issue during the proceedings before the district 

court is grounds for finding that the issue has been abandoned.”); cf Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds 

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting “[a]n unresponsive response is no 

response. In effect the plaintiff was defaulted for refusing to respond to the motion to dismiss. And 

rightly so.”). Therefore, dismissal in favor of Defendants is warranted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Motion, (ECF No. 7), is GRANTED as set forth herein. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to mark this case as CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2023.

____________________________________

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

Copies Provided to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23280-JEM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2023 Page 2 of 2