N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KIR IL VUKOV, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY, C itiz e nship a nd Im m igrat ion Se rvic e s; R OB ER T M . C OW AN, Dire c tor of the Nationa l B e ne fits C e nte r; ERIC H. HOLDER , JR ., Attorne y

Ge ne ra l; JANET NAPOLITANO, Se c re t ary of De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity ; ALEJANDRO M AYOR KAS, Dire c tor of the Unite d State s USC IS; UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55097 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00325-AHM -SS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia A . Howa rd M atz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : KOZINSKI, C hie f Judge , GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge , a

n d B REYER , Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** Kiril Vukov a

ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r dism issing his puta tive c la ss a c tion. Vukov’ s suit sought, inte r alia , to c om pe l the Unite d State s C itiz e nship and Im m i gration Se rvic e s (“ USC IS” ) to a djudic ate his a djustm e nt of im m i gration sta tus a pplic ation. W

hile Vukov’ s c a se wa s pe nding be fore the distric t c ourt, USC IS de nie d his a djustm e n t of sta tus a pplic ation on both sta

tutory and disc re tiona

ry grounds. Thedistric t c ourt gra nte d the gove rnm e n t’ s m otion to dism iss Vukov’ s c a se be c a use Vukov’ s “ c la im s tha

t a re ba se d on the a ge nc y ’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to a c t ha

ve be e n m oote d by

the de nia l of his a djustm e nt a pplic ation. Furthe r, the C ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w his c la im s c h a lle nging thede nia l itse lf.” The distric t c ourt e xpla ine d tha t USC IS’ s re

je c tion of his adjustm e nt of sta tus a pplic ation m oote d his fa ilure to a djudic at e c la im s. The distric t c ourt furthe r found tha t it la c ke d jurisdic tion to re vie w the ba sis for tha t de nia l be c a

use the a ge nc y “ a lte rnate l y

de nie d re lie f a s a

m atte r of disc re tion.” Tha t is, be c a use the a ge nc y re je c te d Vukov’ s a

pplic ation not just on re

v ie wa b le sta tutory grounds but

*** The Honora

ble C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. -2-a lte rnate ly

on non-re vie wa

ble disc re tiona

ry grounds, the re wa s no jurisdic tion to se c o nd gue ss the a ge nc y

de c ision. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt. USC IS’ s de nia l of Vukov’ s pe tition moote d his fa ilure to a djudic ate c la im s. “ In ge ne ra l, whe n a n a dm inistra

tive a ge nc y

ha s pe rform e d the a c tion sought by a pla intiff in litiga

tion, a fe de ra l c ourt ‘ la c ks the a bility to gra nt e ffe c t ive re lie f,’ and the c la im is m o ot.” R ose m e re Ne ighborhood Ass’ n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Age nc y , 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Utils. C om

m ’ n v. FER C , 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th C ir. 1996)). Thedistric t c ourt wa s a lso c orre c t in holding tha t USC IS’ s disc re t iona

ry ba sis for tha

t de nia l of Vukov’ s pe tition is non-revie wa ble be c a use 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i) de prive s us of jurisdic tion to re vie w suc h disc re tiona ry de c isions. Se e a lso M onte ro-M artine z v. Ashc roft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th C ir. 2002); M am igonia n v. B iggs, 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [W ] e the re fore a ffirm M onte roM artine za s good la

w , a nd hold tha

t distric t c ourts ha ve jurisdic tion to he ar c a se s c ha lle nging fina l a ge n c y

de te rm inations re spe c ting e ligibility for the im

m i gration be ne fits e num e ra te d in 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(B )(i) m a d e on nondisc re tiona ry grounds. . . .” ). AFFIRM ED.

-3-