The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________
No 25-CV-1601 (RER)
_____________________
LIWU MIAO
VERSUS
KRISTI NOEM, ET AL.
___________________
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
___________________
RAMÓN E. REYES, JR., District Judge:
Plaintiff Liwu Miao (“Plaintiff”) seeks to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services and its officers (“USCIS” or “Defendants”) to schedule his asylum interview after
nearly eight years since Plaintiff submitted his I-589 application for Asylum and
Withholding of Removal. After Plaintiff filed this action, however, USCIS notified Plaintiff
that an asylum interview was scheduled for May 28, 2025. Based on the scheduled
interview, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by July 15, 2025, why the matter
should not be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff did not respond by the deadline. Since the
notice of interview provides Plaintiff with all the relief that he seeks and is entitled to, the
Court finds that this case is moot and not within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The complaint is therefore dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a citizen of China, living in New York, who filed an I-589 application for
asylum and withholding of removal dated June 27, 2017. (Complaint, ECF No. 1
(“Compl.”) at 2–3.) On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s immigration attorney sent a request to the
New York Asylum Office (“Asylum Office”) to include Plaintiff’s two minor children in his
application. (Id. at 3.) The Asylum Office acknowledged receipt, but Plaintiff did not
receive an interview date. (Id. at 3, 10–12.) Plaintiff then filed a complaint on March 21,
2025, for a Writ of Mandamus directing USCIS to conduct Plaintiff’s asylum interview.
(See generally Compl.) On June 20, 2025, Defendants filed a premotion conference letter
informing the Court that Plaintiff’s asylum interview had been scheduled to occur on May
28, 2025, and that notice was given on May 8, 2025. (Premotion Conf. Letter, Ex. A, ECF
No. 9-1.) On June 24, 2025, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff
to show cause by July 15, 2025, for why the case should not be dismissed as moot. (Order
to Show Cause, ECF Order dated 06/24/2025.) (citing Ye v. Kelly, No. 17-CV-3010
(BMC), 2017 WL 2804932, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017)). That Order also informed
Plaintiff that “failure to respond by 7/15/2025 will likely result in the dismissal of this action
as moot.” (Id.) As of this Order’s date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to
Show Cause.
DISCUSSION
The Mandamus Act authorizes a court to compel an agency to perform its
peremptory duty. Ye, 2017 WL 2804932, at *1. A court may also compel an agency to act
when it has “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication." Id.; 5
U.S.C. 706(1). For a federal court to grant such relief, it must have jurisdiction over the
case. Fox v. Bd. of Tr. of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 139–40 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974) and Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S.
301, 306, n.3 (1964)). Where there is no active “case or controversy” as required by
Article III of the Constitution, the matter is moot, and a district court lacks jurisdiction.
Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. State of Conn. Dept. of Educ., 397 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir.
2005) (“When the issues in dispute between the parties are no longer live, a case
becomes moot, and the court—whether trial, appellate, or Supreme—loses
jurisdiction over the suit, which therefore must be dismissed”) (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) and Russman v. Board of Educ., 260 F.3d 114,
118–19 (2d Cir. 2001)) (cleaned up). Further, when “it is impossible for a court to grant
any effectual relief…to the prevailing party,” the controversy is moot. Tu v.
Mayorkas, No. 23-CV-3137 (PKC), 2024 WL 2111551, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2024)
(quoting Chevron Corp. v. Donzinger, 833 F.3d 74, 124 (2d Cir. 2016)).
A mandamus action to compel an agency to perform “becomes moot when the
official performs the act.” Sadiku v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-CV-3241 (RPK), 2022
WL 173109, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022) (citing Barrett v. United States, 105 F.3d 793,
794–95 (2d Cir. 1996)). In this district, noticing a plaintiff of an interview for an immigration
application routinely constitutes agency action that renders the case moot. See, e.g.,
Long v. Garland, No. 22-CV-6652 (EK), 2023 WL 6930674, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2023);
Bian v. USCIS Office of the General Counsel, No. 22-CV-04332 (HG), 2022 WL 4587742,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022); Yusupov v. Mayorkas, No. 21-CV-4066 (EK), 2021 WL
6105720, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2021).
Here, USCIS acted by sending Plaintiff an asylum interview notice on May 8, 2025.
(ECF No. 9-1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed as moot, but Plaintiff failed to do so. (ECF Order dated 06/24/2025.)
Defendants have therefore provided the relief that Plaintiff sought and the maximum relief
that he could have received. Plaintiff’s claim is thus moot. Ye, 2017 WL 2804932, at *2.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds this complaint moot.
Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ RAMÓN E. REYES, JR.
RAMÓN E. REYES, JR.
United States District Judge
Dated: July 17, 2025
Brooklyn, NY