Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen

365 F. Supp. 3d 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen

8 Citing cases

  1. Yang v. Mayorkas

    23-CV-7756 (RPK) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2024)

    (citing Barrett v. United States, 105 F.3d 793, 794 (2d Cir. 1996)). Consistent with this rule, courts routinely find mandamus actions moot when the government denies the application that the petitioner sought to be adjudicated. See Kuai Le Chen v. Nielson, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Le Chen seeks to compel USCIS to take action on his I-495 Application and I-730 Petitions.

  2. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. The Vill. of Muttontown

    2:22-cv-5524-JS-LGD (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2024)

    In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, “the court must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff.” Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting NRDC v. Johnson, 461 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir. 2006)). B. Failure To State a Claim

  3. Franzini v. Bissell Homecare, Inc.

    2:23-cv-02985(JMA)(LGD) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    In deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, “the court must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff.” Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008)). Finally, the parties cannot jointly waive a fatal defect in subject matter jurisdiction.

  4. Dieujuste v. Sin

    No. 23-CV-7805 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2024)   Cited 3 times

    As noted above, “Plaintiffs, even those proceeding pro se, bear the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

  5. Salihi v. Blinken

    23-cv-718-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2023)   Cited 5 times
    In Salihi, the plaintiff's story mirrors that of Plaintiff here, where the plaintiff filed an I-730 petition that was originally approved by USCIS and sent to the State Department for travel eligibility determinations only after the complaint was filed.

    A New York district court dismissed a complaint as moot where the I-730 petition was denied. See Kuai v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). But the Court has not found a single case dismissing a complaint or claims against DHS and USCIS as moot where an I-730 petition had been conditionally approved but not reached final adjudication.

  6. Uddin v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    CIVIL 5:22-100-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jun. 21, 2022)

    Cf. Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“When a plaintiff asks a court to compel a federal official to act, and the federal official has already performed that act, the claim is moot, and, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

  7. Sadiku v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    20-CV-3241 (RPK) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Consistent with the decisions of other courts in similar circumstances, leave to amend is therefore denied. See, e.g., Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); Jinbin Wu v. Johnson, No. 16-CV-4523 (KAM), 2018 WL 1115215, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018).

  8. Leybinsky v. Uscis

    19-CV-6154 (RPK) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2021)

    “When a plaintiff asks a court to compel a federal official to act, and the federal official has already performed that act, the claim is moot . . . .” Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen, 365 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Barrett v. United States, 105 F.3d 793, 794 (2d Cir. 1996)).