1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RONALD SATISH EMRIT , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-548 (UNA) ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS et al ., ) ) Defendant s. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se , has filed a Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss th e case for want of jurisdiction

. Federal courts “ possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute [.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am ., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

. “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy , 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “One element of the case

- or - controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to
sue.” Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn , 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To satisfy the constitutional minimum for standing, an alleged injury must either have ‘a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts,’ or a statute must make the injury ‘legally cognizable.’ ” Farrell v. Blinken , 4 F.4th 124, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC , 934 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (other citation omitted)2 (emphasis in original))). “ The defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase
v. Sessions , 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is a resident of Sarasota, Florida, who has sued t he Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals , the U.S. St ate Department, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) , and t wo DHS components. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief “and pecuniary damages based on [his] interests” in “bringing his fiancé . . . from Karkov City, Ukraine , to the United Stat es in an expedited proceeding[.]” Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that he met his fiancé on a website ; communicated with her via smartphone between 2019 and 2020 ; lost contact when he broke his phone in the summer of 2020 ; and reconnected with her “recent ly in January of 2022.” Id . at 5

- 7. Plaintiff claims that “[a]fter looking all over the world for ‘Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine’ and finally finding her on Muslim.com,” he is “excited about the prospect of getting marrie d to ‘Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine’ and starting a family with her.” Id . at 7 ¶ 28. Plaintiff admits that he “is filing this cause of action [also] in the U.S. District Courts of Maryland, Eastern Virginia and Western Virginia,” id . at 3, which along with a documented history of him as “ a serial filer of frivolous actions in federal courts ,” Emrit v. DeVos , No. 8:20

- cv - 773

- T

- 60TGW, 2020 WL 9078298, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) , beg s the question of why this Court should entertain th e complaint

. See id . at * 2 ( join ing “ other courts in finding that the complaint ,” filed also in ten other jurisdictions , “ is ‘ frivolous and malicious as it is part of [Emrit ’ s] ongoing and persistent pattern of abusing the IFP privilege by filing vexatious, harassing, and duplicative lawsuits. ’ ” ) (bracket in original)). Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the District of Maryland that “i t is clear from the content of the [instant] Complaint that Plaintiff has not yet sustained an injury [,]” and “[w] ithout suffering an injury, Plaintiff has no standing to pursue this cause of action. ” Emrit v. Bd. of Immigr. Ap peals , No. GJH

- 22

- 623, 2022 WL 943677, at *1 (D.3 Md. Mar. 16, 2022)

. Plaintiff posits that “all five defendants would be committing negligence,” and other wrongs, if they “fail[ ] to provide the plaintiff with assistance regarding helping the plaintiff ob tain a fiancé visa or K

- 1 visa for ‘Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine,” Compl. at 7

- 8 , but he has not alleged that Mary has taken any steps to secure a visa , including appropriately appl ying for one. 1 Because Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege the deprivation of a protected right and resulting injury , this case will be dismissed by separate order

.

_________/s/___________ TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge Date: May 5 , 202 2

1 The Eastern District of Virginia found that “ [t]he plaintiff ’ s case fails to satisfy the requirements of the ripeness doctrine . . . [b] ecause the plaintiff does not allege that Mary has applied for a visa nor that she has been denied one [.] ” Emrit v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals , No. 3:22

- cv - 117, 2022 WL 779999, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2022). W hether discussed in terms of “ripeness” or “standing,” the doctrines “boil down to the same question” and “originate in the same Article III limitation,” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 157 n.5 (2014) (citation omitted), that courts can only adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies,” U.S. Const. art III , § 2.