United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3379 ___________________________

Maria del Carmen Grajales Cortes; Diana Marcela Guingue Grajales

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Loren K. Miller, Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Ur Jaddou, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity as well as her successor and assigns; Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Phillip Slattery, Director, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns

Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------

American Immigration Council; American Immigration Lawyers Association

Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s) ___________________________

No. 23-3520 ___________________________

Lauro Ybarra; Blanca Ortiz Martinez

Plaintiffs - Appellants v.

Loren K. Miller, Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Ur Jaddou, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity as well as her successor and assigns; Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Phillip Slattery, Director, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns

Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------

American Immigration Council; American Immigration Lawyers Association

Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s) ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________

Submitted: May 9, 2024 Filed: December 17, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the United States are generally ineligible for immigrant visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

-2- may waive this ineligibility. Multiple plaintiffs who had filed waiver applications on behalf of their family members sued officials in USCIS, the U.S. Department of State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, alleging that they had unreasonably delayed adjudicating their waiver applications and scheduling their visa interviews. When the case was submitted, all but two cases had been rendered moot. Since submission, the two remaining plaintiffs have had their waiver applications approved or their interviews scheduled. Because these plaintiffs have received “all the relief [they] might have won in [the courtroom],” their cases are moot, too. FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 240 (2024); see also Mercado v. Miller, No. 23-16007, Dkt. No. 58 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) (action rendered moot after USCIS approved appellants’ waivers).

The Appellants have failed to show that “there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again,” and we conclude that their cases do not fall within the mootness exception of capable of repetition yet evading review. Whitfield v. Thurston, 3 F.4th 1045, 1047 (8th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)); see also Mercado, slip op. at 2 (rejecting same argument).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and Appellants’ motion to issue ruling is DENIED. ______________________________

-3-