Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-4164
10-30-2018
SHERIF AHMED ALY IBRAHIM, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J.
Sherif Ahmed Aly Ibrahim pro se sues the Department of State's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") challenging its denial of his and his wife's applications for lawful permanent resident status. We earlier granted Mr. Ibrahim leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his Complaint finding Mr. Ibrahim could not represent his wife or raise claims on her behalf. We also held we lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) to the extent Mr. Ibrahim asks us to review the United States' denial of lawful permanent residency. In light of Mr. Ibrahim's pro se status, we granted him leave to file an amended complaint "if he [could] plead specific facts demonstrating a claim for relief over which we may exercise jurisdiction." Mr. Ibrahim timely filed an Amended Complaint. But he does not state a claim. Mr. Ibrahim's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which the Court can grant relief. We dismiss the Amended Complaint in the accompanying Order.
ECF Doc. No. 2.
ECF Doc. Nos. 4, 5.
ECF Doc. No. 4 at 2.
Id. at 2-3.
Id. at 3.
ECF Doc. No. 7.
I. Alleged facts
Mr. Ibrahim "paid about $5000 to adjust status" because the Department of State "confirmed there is a visa ready for [him]." After a "long time waiting," the Department of State "sent [him] a denial letter [on September 28, 2017] as they ran out of visas." As relief, he wants the Department of State and USCIS "to give [him] back all the money [he] spent on their fraud visa."
ECF Doc. No. 4 at 3.
Id.
Id. at 4.
II. Analysis
As we previously granted Mr. Ibrahim leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must dismiss his Amended Complaint if he fails to state a claim. Whether his amended complaint fails to state a claim is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We must determine whether the amended complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Conclusory allegations do not suffice. As Mr. Ibrahim is proceeding pro se, we construe his allegations liberally.
See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).
Id.
Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Mr. Ibrahim wants the Department of State and USCIS "to give [him] back all the money [he] spent on their fraud visa." He does not plead a statutory right affording such relief. Because Mr. Ibrahim essentially wants us to direct the Department of State and USCIS to return his money, we construe his Amended Complaint as seeking a writ of mandamus.
ECF Doc. No. 7 at 4.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ("[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff").
Mandamus relief is "only available to compel 'a legal duty which is a specific, plain ministerial act devoid of the exercise of judgment or discretion.'" Nothing in the Amended Complaint suggests the Department of State and USCIS are required to refund money when an application for adjustment of status is denied. We cannot find case law or other legal basis suggesting such a duty. Absent such a remedy, we cannot enter the requested writ of mandamus.
United States ex rel. Vaso v. Chertoff, 369 F. App'x 395, 400 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Harmon Cove Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsh, 815 F.2d 949, 951 (3d Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Nothing suggests Mr. Ibrahim paid $5,000 to the United States and to the extent Mr. Ibrahim seeks a refund of attorney's fees, we express no opinion on this remedy.
We cannot discern another basis for a claim for relief from the Amended Complaint. As we previously explained to Mr. Ibrahim, we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(b), to review a denial of lawful permanent resident status. --------
III. Conclusion
We dismiss Mr. Ibrahim's Amended Complaint in the accompanying Order. As we already afforded Mr. Ibrahim an opportunity to amend, he has not plead a plausible claim for relief, and we can find no basis to order the United States to refund his alleged fees paid to someone, further attempts to amend would be futile.