UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-00558-AH-(JCx) Date June 25, 2025 Title Adex Odiete et al. v. Ur Mendoza Jaddou et al.

Present: The Honorable Anne Hwang, United States District Judge

Yolanda Skipper Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The Court has received and reviewed the filings related to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 16 and 27) and Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 Motion (Dkt. Nos. 25 and 26), as well as all records in this case. Plaintiffs in their Rule 60 Motion now seem to argue that they are seeking relief for the revocation of the Form I-130, Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”’) violations, and due process violations under the Fifth Amendment, separate from the revocation of the Form I-485, which the Court’s previous Order addressed (Dkt. No. 28).! See generally Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiffs do not seem to raise any other claims for relief.

The Court’s Order previously docketed (Dkt. No. 20) was erroneously formatted and a corrected version is docketed as Dkt. No. 28.

Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk YS

Neither of the Parties address whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the revocation of the I-130,2 APA violations in this specific case,3 or due process violations, 4 which Plaintiffs have now clarified are being raised as separate claims from the Form I-485.

Accordingly, the Court orders the Parties to file supplemental briefing addressing whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the revocation of the I-130, APA violations in this case, and due process violations. The Parties should address only the jurisdictional issues.

Plaintiffs shall file their papers by July 9, 2025. Defendants shall file their papers by July 23, 2025. As Plaintiffs are the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ failure to respond timely and adequately to this Order shall result in denial of their pending Rule 60 Motion. Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 Motion is under submission until jurisdiction is determined.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 See, e.g., Bouarfa v. Mayorkas,

(2024). 3 See, e.g., Kerur v. Mayorkas,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2024) (“the APA allows for judicial review of agency action except when statutes preclude judicial review”) (quoting

(a)(1)) (cleaned up). 4 See, e.g., Gutierrez v. United States, 857 F.App’x 944 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021).