UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BILLY G. ASEMANI, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED SEP 1 5 2010 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia

This matter comes before the Court upon review ofplaintiffs application for leave to proceed informapauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be grantedbut the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiffalleges that there is a dispute to his status as a United States national. This Court found that plaintiffwas a national ofthe United States for the limitedpurpose ofpursing an action against the Islamic Republic ofIran, among others, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") on claims arising from his alleged detention and torture on July 14, 2000. 1 Asemani v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 266 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (D.D.C. 2003); seeAsemani
v. Syrian ArabRepublic, No 09-1158, 2009 WL 4456323, at *2 n.3 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2009) (declining to address whether plaintiffestablished that he was a United States national for purposes ofbringing an action under the FSIA, commenting that such an assertion was "questionable at best"), appeal docketed, No. 09-7162 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2009). However, the Department ofJustice has not deemed plaintiffa United States national for immigration purposes, see Compl., Ex. B at 2, and plaintiffhas been ordered removed to Iran, see 

### id., Ex. Gat The Court denied without prejudice plaintiffs motion for ajudicial declaration of nationalityunder 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and 28 U.S.c. § 2201. Asemani, 266 F. Supp. 2d at 27.1. Plaintiffnow demands a declaratoryjudgment "inhis favor[] concerning his U.S. nationality status within the context ofthe FSIA." Compl. at 10. Article III ofthe Constitution extends thejudicialpower ofthe federal courts onlyto "Cases" and "Controversies." 

# u.s. CONST. art. III, 

### § 2. "[A] showing ofstanding is an essential and unchanging predicate to any exercise ofa court'sjurisdiction." Fla. Audubon Soc

## yv. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Itis plaintiffs obligation to demonstrate standing, seeLujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560 (1992), and to do so he must have suffered or stand to suffer an injurytraceable to the defendant's alleged action which likelywill be redressed by a decision in plaintiffs favor. See id. The Court alreadyhas ruled inplaintiffs favor regarding his authorityto bring an action under the FSIA, seeAsemani, 266 F. Supp. 2d at 27, and his request for "adeclaration as to his legal rights" as to that decision's implications, Compl. at 9, does not present a live case or controversy for resolution. Moreover, "[t]his narrow ruling has no bearing on whether [plaintiff]
was lawfullydetained as an alien subject to removal proceedings under the Immigration and NationalityAct." Asemani v. Mukasey, No. RWT-08-347, 2008 WL 6581129, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2008). Insofar as plaintiffseeks an advisory opinion, the Court is not inclined to grant such a request. SeeAsemani v. Attorney General of the Us., 292 Fed. Appx. 248, 249 (4th Cir. 2008) ("Because the reliefsought byAsemani is inextricablyintertwined with his removal proceedings, and the district court did not havejurisdiction over those proceedings, it properly declined to issue an advisory opinion regarding
... Asemani's nationality."), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 927 2009). The complaint will be dismissed for lack ofstanding. An Order will be issued separately.