# Lim v. Mayorkas

> District Court, District of Columbia · June 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10034153

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** June 17, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Trevor N. McFadden
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10034153

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BYUNGHUI LIM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 1:24-cv-01370 (TNM)

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Byunghui Lim and Kho Eun Chung are South Korean nationals who have petitioned for

admission to this country on immigrant visas. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8, ECF No. 1. They allege that they

submitted their visa applications, but that those applications have remained pending without

action for 17 months. Id. ¶ 17. They therefore sued several officials affiliated with the

Department of State, seeking a writ of mandamus that would compel the Government to decide

their applications. Id. ¶¶ 20–27.

On May 14, 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause. May 14, 2024, Minute

Order. It noted that none of the Defendants that Plaintiffs had sued were consular officers as

defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(9) and 22 C.F.R. § 40.1(d). Plaintiffs therefore likely lacked

standing to sue them. See Yaghoubnezhad v. Stufft, 1:23-cv-03094 (TNM), 2024 WL 2077551,

at *5 (D.D.C. May 9, 2024). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should

not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

Plaintiffs’ response was due by June 4. That deadline has passed, and they still have not

responded. The Court therefore construes their failure to timely answer the Order to Show Cause

as a concession to the standing objections that it raised. Further, the Court construes their failure
to answer the Order to Show Cause as amounting to a failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Thomas v.

Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Bonacci v. Comm’r, 1992 WL 360559, at *1 (D.C.

Cir. Oct. 6, 1992); Allen v. Brown, 320 F. Supp. 3d 16, 26 (D.D.C. 2018).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case. A separate Order will issue today.

2024.06.17
15:05:31 -04'00'
Dated: June 17, 2024 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10034153. Public record. Not legal advice.