N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OB AYDUL HOQUE B HUIYAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-16714 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00013 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of the Northe rn M ariana Isla nds R a m ona V. M anglona , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2019 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Oba y dul Hoque B huiy an, a

c itiz e n of B angla de sh, a

ppe a ls the dism issa l of his Fe de ra l Tort C la im s Ac t and de c la

ra tory judgm e nt c l a im s for la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we 

# FIL ED JUN 26 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.a ffirm . The pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the fa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , so we ne e d not re c ount thosehe re . W e re vie w de novo a

n orde r dism issing a c om

pla int for la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. Gonzale z v . Unite d State

s , 814 F.3d 1022, 1028 n.2 (9th C ir. 2016). W e re solve a

fa c ia l atta c k on subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion by “ [a ] c c e pting the pla i ntiff’ s a lle gations a s true and dra wing a ll re a s ona

ble infe re nc e s in the pla i ntiff’ s favor.” Le itev . C raneC o. , 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C i r. 2014). The non-m oving pa

rty “ be ars the burde n

of proving by

a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e ” tha

t the c ourt posse sse s subje c t m a tte r jurisdic t ion. Id
. 1. The distric t c ourt la c ke d subje c t m a tte r jurisdic t ion ove r B huiy a n ’ s FTC A c la im

be c a u se B huiy an fa ile d to ide ntify sim ila r c irc um sta

nc e s giving rise to lia bility unde r state tort la

w. The FTC A wa i ve s the gove rnm e nt’ s sove re ign im m unity “ unde r c irc um sta

nc e s whe re the Unite d State s, if a priva te pe rson, would be lia ble to the c la im ant in a c c o rdanc e with the la w of the pla c e whe re the a c t or om i ssion oc c urre d.” Te rbush v . Unite d State s , 516 F.3d 1125, 1128–29 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C . § 1346(b)(1)). The gove rnm e nt a rgue s tha t Ve rm ont la

w a pplie s; B huiy an c onte n ds tha t the la w of the C om

m onwe a lth of theNorthe rn M aria na Isla nds (“ C NM I” ) a

pplie s. W e ne e d not de c ide whic h la wa pplie s, be c a

use B huiy an fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t e ithe r C NM I or Ve rm ont la w would hold a
2priva

te a c tor lia

ble in a ny sim ila r situa tion. B huiy an re lie s on Ve rm ont la w involving gene ra l ne glige n c e princ iple s, a nd a C N M I c a se involving a

n e m ploy e r’ s re sponsibility

to submi t doc um e nts to thegove rnm e nt. Rok ibul v . Philpan Int’l C orp. , NM I Supe r. C t. C iv. No. 07-0175 (August 11, 2009). None of the c a se s a

re suffic i e ntly

ana l ogous. B huiy an c ite s to out-of-jurisdic tion a uthority , but re lia

nc e on out-of-jurisdic tion c a s e s doe s not suffic e , pe r the pla in la n gua g e of the sta

tute . Furthe r— a s the distric t c ourt note d— the re is, a s a

ge ne ra l m a tte r, no priva

te ana logue to gove rnm e n ta l withdra wa l of im m igration be n e fits. 2. The distric t c ourt la c ke d subje c t m a tte r jurisdic t ion ove r B huiy an’ s de c la ra tory judgm e n t a c tion be c a

use B huiy an’ s c om

pla int did not a

rtic ulate a suffic i e ntly

c e rta in injury

in fa c t. In the c onte xt of a de c l ara tory

judgm e nt,

“ ‘ thre a te ne d injury

m ust be c e rtainly

impe nding

to c onstitute

injury in fa c t’ . . .

‘ [a ] lle gations of possible future injury ’ are not suffic ie nt.” C lappe r v . Amne

sty Int’l. USA , 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting W hitmore v . Ark ansas , 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)). Nowhe re in the re c ord or the brie fing doe s B huiy an c l a im any inte nt to tra

ve l to the Unite d State s. Furthe r, the gove rnm e nt ha s a ffirm e d tha t, a s a re sult of there ope ning of his c a se and the gran t of hum a nita rian pa role , B huiy an no longe r ha s a

ny unla wful a c c rue d pre se nc e tim e . Thus, a ny injury he m i ght

3suffe r a s a

re sult of a

ny prior pote ntia lly

a c c rue d unla

wful pre s e nc e tim e doe s not c onstitute an injury suffic ie nt to support the

e xiste nc e of a c a se or c ontrove rsy . AFFIRM E D.

4