Court Opinion

ID: 9917054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:01:22.024066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:55:09.226632
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1697    Document: 15     Page: 1   Filed: 01/11/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                      ABIY YIFRU,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1697
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00567-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
 Horn.
                  ______________________

                Decided: January 11, 2024
                 ______________________

    ABIY YIFRU, New York, NY, pro se.

     ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1697      Document: 15      Page: 2     Filed: 01/11/2024

 2                                                    YIFRU v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Abiy Yifru appeals pro se a decision of the United
 States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his com-
 plaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
 We affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
     Mr. Yifru emigrated from Ethiopia to the United States
 in 2003 after he was selected through a visa lottery pro-
 gram to receive a U.S. visa. 1 See, e.g., Appx33–34,
 Appx41. 2 According to Mr. Yifru, upon winning the visa
 lottery, he was “compelled” to complete the visa paperwork
 by family members and friends of a “so-called [American]
 sponsor.” Appx34. He ultimately submitted the visa pa-
 perwork, attended a visa interview with a U.S. consular of-
 ficer, paid a visa fee, and received his U.S. visa.
 Appx35–38. Mr. Yifru asserts in this appeal that after ob-
 taining his U.S. visa, the “Ethiopian immigration author-
 ity” informed Mr. Yifru that he additionally needed a
 clearance letter from his employer in Ethiopia to obtain his
 exit visa. Appellant Br. 8. Mr. Yifru states that “he sub-
 mitted a resignation letter, []his employer cleared him, and
 he obtained the exit visa.” Id.; see also Appx41.
     Mr. Yifru alleges that since moving to the United
 States, he has endured homelessness and other hardships.
 See Appellant Br. 8. During this time, Mr. Yifru has sought

     1   This case was dismissed on the pleadings and no
 factual challenges have been raised, so the allegations in
 the complaint “set[] forth the uncontested factual backdrop
 for this appeal.” Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v.
 United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here,
 we provide a summary of the complaint’s allegations rele-
 vant to this appeal.
     2   “Appx” refers to the appendix submitted with
 Mr. Yifru’s brief.
Case: 23-1697      Document: 15      Page: 3     Filed: 01/11/2024

 YIFRU v. US                                                    3

 various types of benefits from the U.S. government, includ-
 ing unemployment compensation and rental subsidy
 vouchers. Id.; see also Appx66–72.
     In May 2022, Mr. Yifru filed a complaint against the
 U.S. government in the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”).
 See Appx28. His complaint alleged conduct spanning the
 past twenty years but included just one cause of action un-
 der the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. See, e.g.,
 Appx30–31, 73; see generally Appx39–72. Mr. Yifru alleged
 that he had a protected property interest in his employ-
 ment contract with his employer in Ethiopia. Appx73. He
 alleged that the government interfered with that employ-
 ment contract by “compell[ing]” him to complete the visa
 paperwork and immigrate to the United States, resulting
 in a taking of his employment contract. See, e.g., Appx73.
      The government moved to dismiss Mr. Yifru’s com-
 plaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
 After full briefing, the CFC issued an order granting the
 motion. See Appx2. The CFC found that Mr. Yifru’s com-
 plaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim un-
 der the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Appx20.
 The CFC also considered the complaint’s other extensive
 allegations and apparent requests for relief. Appx20–27.
 It found that they either failed to state a claim or did not
 fall within the CFC’s jurisdiction. Id. The CFC accordingly
 dismissed Mr. Yifru’s complaint. Appx1, Appx27. This ap-
 peal followed.
                     STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review de novo the CFC’s grant of a motion to dis-
 miss for failure to state a claim. Inter-Tribal Council of
 Arizona, Inc. v. United States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
 Cir. 2020). We also conduct de novo review of grants of
 motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. In either of
 these types of pleading-stage disputes, we accept all factual
 allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in
 the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
Case: 23-1697    Document: 15      Page: 4    Filed: 01/11/2024

 4                                                 YIFRU v. US

                         DISCUSSION
     The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the
 United States Constitution provides that “private property
 [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensa-
 tion.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. Government action is a
 threshold requirement of a takings claim. See Huntleigh
 USA Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
 2008). Moreover, government action must result in a com-
 pensable taking of a property interest for public use. Id. If
 no property is taken—for example, if the government does
 not actually assume a party’s contracts for public use and
 instead simply “frustrat[es]” a party’s business expecta-
 tions—there is no taking. See, e.g., id. at 1379–82.
     Here, Mr. Yifru asserts that the U.S. consular officer
 “orchestrated” the acts of private parties to coerce him to
 complete the U.S. visa paperwork, and otherwise “com-
 pelled” him to resign from his job in Ethiopia. On these
 bases, Mr. Yifru claims a Fifth Amendment taking of his
 employment contract in Ethiopia. But Mr. Yifru alleges no
 facts to support that the conduct of a U.S. government offi-
 cial led the United States to assume his employment con-
 tract for public purposes. We thus agree with the CFC that
 Mr. Yifru fails to state a claim on which relief can be
 granted.
      Mr. Yifru’s complaint also asks the CFC to instruct
 other government agencies to provide Mr. Yifru with gov-
 ernment benefits. But the CFC lacks such jurisdiction, as
 it “has no general power to provide equitable relief against
 the Government or its officers,” including as to Mr. Yifru’s
 claims in this case. United States v. Tohono O’Odham Na-
 tion, 563 U.S. 307, 313 (2011). We agree with the CFC that
 these shortcomings with the relief sought further support
 dismissal of Mr. Yifru’s complaint.
Case: 23-1697     Document: 15       Page: 5   Filed: 01/11/2024

 YIFRU v. US                                                  5

                         CONCLUSION
      We have considered Mr. Yifru’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, the
 Court of Federal Claims order dismissing Mr. Yifru’s com-
 plaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction is
 affirmed.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.