IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MOHAMED KHALIL AND §

NORMA FLORES, §

PLAINTIFFS, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1220-S-BK

 §

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND §

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, §

DEFENDANT §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case has been referred to the 

undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management. Now before the Court is 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support. Doc. 28. As detailed herein, the motion 

should be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The operative complaint alleges that in April 2019, Plaintiff Norma Flores filed a Form I130, “Petition for Alien Relative,” (“Petition”) to classify Plaintiff Mohamed Khalil as her 

spouse. Doc. 9 at 2, 6. It further alleges that, based on Flores’ Petition, Khalil filed a Form I485, “Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,” (“Application”) seeking 

lawful permanent resident status. Doc. 9 at 11. Plaintiffs were subsequently interviewed by 

officials of Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“U.S. Immigration”)

to ascertain whether their marriage was bona fide. Doc. 8 at 4; Doc. 33 at 1. 

In June 2022, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging that U.S. 

Immigration had not adjudicated Flores’ Petition and Khalil’s Application due to Khalil’s name 

Case 3:22-cv-01220-S-BK Document 39 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 225
2

and race. Doc. 3 at 1. Because only Khalil, a non-lawyer, signed the Complaint on behalf of 

both Plaintiffs, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to “file an amended complaint that is filed by each 

pro se Plaintiff and that meets the pleading requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]

8(a).” Doc. 5 at 2. Plaintiffs timely filed their Amended Complaint and a Response to the Order,

requesting that the Court direct U.S. Immigration to adjudicate Flores’ Petition and Khalil’s 

Application. Doc. 8; Doc. 9, passim.

In November 2022, U.S. Immigration requested that Plaintiffs appear for a second 

interview the following month. See Doc. 29 at 6. While Khalil attended with their attorney, 

Flores failed to appear and did not submit any correspondence explaining her absence. Doc. 28

at 2; Doc. 29 at 6-7. Accordingly, U.S. Immigration denied Flores’ Petition as abandoned. Doc. 

29 at 6-7. Because Khalil’s Application was predicated on the approval of Flores’ Petition, U.S. 

Immigration also denied his Application. Doc. 29 at 9-10. U.S. Immigration then filed the 

instant motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doc. 28 at 1.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, “a court may evaluate (1) the complaint alone, (2) the 

complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or (3) the complaint 

supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” Den Norske 

Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Federal courts may only consider “actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.” 

Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988) (citation omitted). “If a dispute has been 

Case 3:22-cv-01220-S-BK Document 39 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 226
3

resolved or if it has evanesced because of changed circumstances . . . it is considered moot.” Am. 

Med. Ass’n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). “If the controversy is 

moot, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction.” Hill v. Est. of Hill, 594 F. Supp. 3d 741, 

760 (N.D. Tex. 2022). “Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited. . . . [A]

valid objection may lead a court midway through briefing to dismiss a complaint in its entirety.”

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

III. ANALYSIS

U.S. Immigration avers that Plaintiffs’ claims are moot as both the Petition and the 

Application now have been adjudicated and denied; thus, this case should be dismissed for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.

1 Doc. 34 at 1. Plaintiffs allege in their amended response that, 

inter alia, (1) U.S. Immigration denies that it interviewed Plaintiffs in September 2021; (2) U.S. 

Immigration lost files and claimed it could not obtain documents or that certain records did not 

exist so it could request a second interview in order to delay this case and retaliate against them;

and (3) Flores has a pending Form N-400 application, so the case is not moot. Doc 33 at 1-3.

Plaintiffs’ arguments lack merit as (1) the record does not reflect that U.S. Immigration

disputes it previously interviewed Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs’ assertions that U.S. Immigration

purposefully lost their records, claimed certain documents did not exist, and “felt insulted and 

decided to retaliate” by scheduling a second interview lack plausible factual substantiation; and

1 U.S. Immigration subsequently notified the Court that Flores was unaware Khalil had filed this 

action and that she did not wish to be a party to it, thereby leaving Khalil without standing to 

challenge the denial of Flores’ Petition. Doc. 36 at 4; Doc. 37 at 4 (Decl. of Crystal Ahumada); 

Doc. 37 at 15-16 (Sworn Stmt. of Flores). Thereafter, Khalil filed a Statement for Illustration in 

which he asserts that he will agree with the Court’s dismissal of this case as he does “not see the 

point of going on with this lawsuit.” Doc. 38 at 5.

Case 3:22-cv-01220-S-BK Document 39 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 227
4

(3) while Flores has an active Form N-400 application for naturalization, such application is not 

at issue in this case, see Doc. 8; Doc. 9. 

In sum, Plaintiffs have already obtained the relief sought in their operative complaint, towit: adjudication of Flores’ Petition and Khalil’s Application. As such, this civil action is now 

moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Hill, 594 F. Supp. 3d at 760.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, Doc. 28,

should be GRANTED, and this case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 

want of jurisdiction.

SO RECOMMENDED on June 23, 2023.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file 

specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate where in the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending 

the time to file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01220-S-BK Document 39 Filed 06/23/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 228