United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5204 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-01040-JMC Filed On: November 3, 2025 Jane A. Derewal,

Appellant

v.

JD Vance, Vice President of the United States and Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 29, 2025 and June 16, 2025 orders be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to allege particularized harms sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Additionally, the district court properly denied appellant’s request for a refund of the district court filing fee. See In re: Gamboa, No. 20-5017, unpublished order (D.C. Cir. June 19, 2020) (citing Johnson v. Rhodes, 220 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (stating that litigant was not entitled to refund, because “the obligation of a filing fee attaches at the time of filing [the complaint] and the obligation remains despite the disposition of the case”)). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5204 September Term, 2025

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Page 2