1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARAH IMAD MAADARANI, No. 2:24-cv-01325-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al.,1 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Sarah Imad Maadarani is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the 19 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). Defendants 20 filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23), arguing that this action is now moot because a consular 21 officer acted on Plaintiff’s spouse’s application for a visa and refused that application. ECF No. 22 23 at 2. Defendants request the Court recommend dismissal of the action as moot and vacate its 23 prior Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (ECF No. 18). For the reasons stated below, the 24 Court hereby VACATES its F&R and will recommend that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be 25 granted and the action be dismissed as moot. 26 //// 27 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), when a public officer ceases to hold office while the action is 28 1 Background and Procedural History 2 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on May 9, 2024, seeking an order of 3 mandamus directing Defendants to adjudicate the visa application of her spouse. ECF No. 1. 4 Plaintiff is a U.S. Citizen and alleged that her husband’s visa application had been pending for 5 over 10 months at the time she filed this action. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendants filed a motion to 6 dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 5. 7 On October 31, 2024, the Court issued an F&R recommending that the motion be denied 8 without prejudice. ECF No. 18. Defendants objected to the F&R and filed notices of 9 supplemental authority. ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 21. District Judge Coggins has not yet ruled on the 10 F&R. On May 30, 2005, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss, stating that Plaintiff’s 11 spouse’s visa application was adjudicated in December 2024, and thus the action is moot. ECF 12 No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was 13 submitted on June 23, 2025. The Court now recommends the motion be granted. 14 Analysis 15 Defendants note that after the F&R issued on October 31, 2024, the Government 16 completed its adjudication of the contested visa application on December 10, 2024. ECF No. 23 17 at 1. Defendants contend a consular officer refused Plaintiff’s spouse’s application for a visa, 18 citing

(3)(B) (Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration & Nationality Act), which 19 is for “security and related grounds.”

. Defendants represent this was a “final decision.” 20 Defendants contend that because Plaintiff sought adjudication of the visa application, which has 21 now occurred, the Court can no longer grant effective relief.

. Defendants’ motion is 22 supported by the Declaration of Shelley Weger, which attaches a “refusal worksheet,” or refusal 23 notice, which states that the application is refused and that “[n]o waiver is available for the 24 grounds of ineligibility.” ECF No. 23-2. Defendants request the action be dismissed as moot, 25 and the prior F&R vacated. 26 Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Local Rule 230 provides that any opposition must be 27 filed within 14 days, and “failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as 28 a non-opposition to the motion.” LR 230(c). Plaintiff’s opposition was due on June 13, 2025. 1 Pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants. Munoz v. 2 United States,

(9th Cir. 2022). However, the Court will not recommend 3 dismissal based solely on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules. 4 Nonetheless, Plaintiff has not contested Defendants’ assertion that the visa application has 5 been finally adjudicated, and on that basis it does appear that the case is in fact moot. A court 6 lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the controversy before it becomes moot. See Iqbal v. 7 Blinken,

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 22 2024), citing In re Burrell,

, 998 (9th 8 Cir. 2005). “If an event occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is 9 moot and must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,

, 1123 10 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff initially sought relief in the form of the Court ordering Defendants to 11 adjudicate her spouse’s visa application. “Courts have found immigration cases moot when a 12 consular officer makes a final decision to grant or deny an applicant’s visa application.” Iqbal, 13

at *5. However, an action may not be moot if the visa application has been 14 nominally denied and is still undergoing administrative processing or the consular officer has 15 requested additional information.

at 5 n. 4 (collecting cases). Plaintiff does not argue that the 16 visa application is still in administrative processing. Accordingly, it appears the Court cannot 17 grant effective relief and the case is moot. See Young v. U.S.C.I.S.,

(W.D. 18 Wa. Aug. 22, 2025) (“Because the Government’s adjudication of [plaintiff’s] visa application is 19 concluded, it is clear that the relief requested in Plaintiff’s petition is moot and it must be 20 dismissed.”). 21 To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint could be construed as seeking not only adjudication of 22 the visa application, but also the granting the application, the Court cannot grant that additional 23 relief under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. ECF No. 23 at 4. “Normally a consular 24 official’s discretionary decision to grant or deny a visa petition is not subject to judicial review.” 25 Patel v. Reno,

(9th Cir. 1997). By contrast, the court may review an action 26 that “challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a 27 decision taken within the consul’s discretion.”

. Plaintiff has not opposed the 28 motion and does not offer an argument that an exception to the general rule of consular non- 1 || reviewability applies. See Dep ’t of State v. Munoz,

, 907-09 (2024). Thus, the Court 2 || concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Plaintiff filed this action seeking adjudication of her spouse’s visa application. 5 || Defendants contend that adjudication has taken place and the application was refused. Plaintiff 6 || does not contest that her claims are now moot. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS the 7 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) be GRANTED. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The previously issued Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 18) are HEREBY 10 | VACATED; and 11 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT: 12 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) be GRANTED and the action be 13 dismissed as moot; and 14 3. The Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close this file. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 17 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 | objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 20 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 21 || Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 22 SO ORDERED. 23 || DATED: September 24, 2025 mk 24 SEAN C. RIORDAN 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28