NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SERAJUL HAQUE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2717

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00471-MCW, Judge Mary Ellen 

Coster Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: April 7, 2017

______________________ 

SERAJUL HAQUE, Milpitas, CA, pro se. 

EMMA BOND, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., BRIAN A.

MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 
2 HAQUE v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Serajul Haque appeals from an order of the U.S. 

Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing Mr. 

Haque’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Because we find that the Claims Court properly found 

that it lacked jurisdiction over this case, we affirm.

On April 13, 2016, Mr. Haque filed a complaint at the 

Claims Court. Appellee’s App. 7–8. In his complaint, Mr. 

Haque sought judicial review of a decision by the Social 

Security Administration and listed the “Commissioner of 

Social Security” as the defendant. Mr. Haque alleged that 

the Commissioner issued an adverse decision with respect 

to his retirement benefits. Mr. Haque further asserted 

that he had “exhausted administrative remedies in this 

matter and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 

42, U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 8. 

On September 22, 2016, the Claims Court dismissed 

Mr. Haque’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The 

Claims Court noted that Mr. Haque’s “complaint appears 

to be a form complaint for judicial review of a decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California.” Id.

at 2. The Claims Court explained that claims brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) arise only in district court, not 

the Court of Federal Claims. Id. at 2–3. 

Section 405(g), which governs judicial review of social 

security appeals, states that “such an action shall be 

brought in the district court of the United States for the 

judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,” here the 

Northern District of California. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). The Claims Court thus properly dismissed 

this case for lack of jurisdiction.
HAQUE v. US 3

Mr. Haque also alleges in his informal appeal brief 

here that the Claims Court failed to take into account his 

purported “consultancy to governments on reforms Gov of 

Bangladesh/CA/USA/County-SC 1980-2016 not yet recognized, appreciated, granted or accepted on service to 

USA.” Appellant’s Br. 1. Although it is unclear what 

consultancy Mr. Haque is referencing, it is clear that this 

consultancy was not included in Mr. Haque’s complaint. 

And because “[d]etermination of jurisdiction starts with 

the complaint,” Mr. Haque’s purported consultancy-based 

dispute does not cure the jurisdictional deficiency of his 

social security appeal. Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 

1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. v. 

Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 9–10 (1983)).

This court has reviewed Mr. Haque’s various filings 

including his miscellaneous letters (ECF Nos. 4, 16–18, 

21, 23–27, 30–33, 35–37, 39, 41–42, 45, and 48) and find 

them to be unavailing. This court has also reviewed Mr. 

Haque’s motion for other relief (ECF No. 47) filed on 

March 29, 2017, and denies it as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Claims 

Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.