Hugo Adrian Villar Castellanos, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 31, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION HUGO ADRIAN VILLAR CASTELLANOS, § et al., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-080 § KRISTI NOEM, et al., § § Defendant. § ORDER In this action, Plaintiffs Hugo Adrian Villar Castellanos, Shishir Timilsena, Amir Gholami, Julio Dylan Sanchez Wong, and Mayra Alejandra Varela Varga are international students who attend the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on F-1 visas. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit after Defendants took steps to terminate Plaintiffs’ SEVIS records, adversely affecting their F-1 visa status. After suit was filed, Defendants restored Plaintiffs’ SEVIS records, retroactive to the date of termination. Defendants then moved to dismiss the case as moot. (Mot., Doc. 41) A Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot. (R&R, Doc. 46) Plaintiffs object to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that the voluntary cessation doctrine precludes dismissal because Defendants may reinitiate termination of the Plaintiffs’ visa-related records in the future. (Objections, Doc. 47) A district court reviews de novo the portions of a Report and Recommendation to which a party files timely objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ objections, which largely re-assert the arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge. Based on the record and the applicable law, and applying de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge analyzed the arguments that the parties raised appropriately and reached the correct decision. The Court agrees that no case or controversy exists to sustain Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit.

For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Hugo Adrian Villar Castellanos, Shishir Timilsena, Amir Gholami, Julio Dylan Sanchez Wong, and Mayra Alejandra Varela Varga’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46). The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.' As a result, it is: ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.

This is a final and appealable order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Signed on March 31, 2026. ce : United States District Judge The Court notes that the dismissal should be without prejudice. See Devins v. Armstrong, 167 F.4th 247, 253 (5th Cir.