LIUDMYLA PUSHKAR, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONY BLINKEN, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 21-2297 (CKK)
United States District Court, District of Columbia
November 2, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Liudmyla Pushkar was a selectee of the Diversity Visa Lottery for the 2021 fiscal year. By statute, her eligibility to receive a diversity visa expired on September 30, 2021. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c)(1), 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II).
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action on June 22, 2021, alleging that Defendants had “unreasonably delayed” adjudication of her diversity visa application. See Compl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 1.[1] On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed an [11] Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining (“TRO”), in which Plaintiff sought an order compelling Defendants Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro J. Mayorkas (“Defendants”) to “schedule” her consular interview and to “issue” her immigrant visa before September 30, 2021. See Pl.'s TRO Mot. at 11. In response, Defendants filed a consolidated opposition and motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Defs.' Opp'n & Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19.
The Court denied Plaintiff's TRO Motion on September 23, 2021, see Order, ECF No. 20, and held in abeyance Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to allow Plaintiff, at her request, to respond to Defendants' motion. See Mem. Op. at 8, ECF No. 21. To date, this Court has not granted Plaintiff any of the relief requested in her Complaint or TRO Motion.
In furtherance of its independent duty to assess its own jurisdiction, see, e.g., Lenkiewicz v. Castro, 118 F.Supp.3d 255, 261 (D.D.C. 2015), the Court subsequently ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing “whether the Court retains jurisdiction over this case, given that the September 30, 2021 statutory deadline for issuing diversity visas has passed.” Minute Order (Oct. 14, 2021).
Defendants argue Plaintiff's claims are moot because the statutory deadline for issuing diversity visas for FY 2021 has passed. Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 1, ECF No. 24. Defendants contend that because the applicable statute bars consular officers from issuing a diversity visa “after midnight on September 30th of the selection fiscal year, ” Plaintiff's “alleged injuries are no longer redressable, ” and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. at 1, 3.
Relying on Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2019), Plaintiff responds that this Court retains jurisdiction over her claims because another court in this jurisdiction has “already granted some relief that is applicable to Plaintiff and her claim.” Pl.'s Suppl. Br. at 2, ECF No. 25. Specifically, in a different case with different plaintiffs raising different legal claims, the court ordered the government on September 9, 2021-in advance of the September 30 fiscal year deadline-to “undertake good-faith efforts, directly and through their designee, to expeditiously process and adjudicate DV-2021 applications and derivative beneficiary applications by September 30, 20201.” Pl.'s Suppl. Br. at 2; see also Mem. Op. at 7, ECF No. 21 (addressing same order). Plaintiff claims that because another court in this jurisdiction granted relief that was
