Kiril Vukov v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Citizenship

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIRIL VUKOV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, Citizenship and Immigration
Services; ROBERT M. COWAN, Director
of the National Benefits Center; ERIC H.
HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; JANET
NAPOLITANO, Secretary of Department
of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, Director of the United
States USCIS; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-55097
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00325-AHM-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2014**
Pasadena, California
FILED
MAR 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and BREYER, Senior
District Judge.***
Kiril Vukov appeals the district court’s order dismissing his putative class
action. Vukov’s suit sought, inter alia, to compel the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his adjustment of immigration
status application. While Vukov’s case was pending before the district court,
USCIS denied his adjustment of status application on both statutory and
discretionary grounds. The district court granted the government’s motion to
dismiss Vukov’s case because Vukov’s “claims that are based on the agency’s
alleged failure to act have been mooted by the denial of his adjustment application.
Further, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review his claims challenging the denial
itself.”
The district court explained that USCIS’s rejection of his adjustment of
status application mooted his failure to adjudicate claims. The district court further
found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the basis for that denial because the
agency “alternately denied relief as a matter of discretion.” That is, because the
agency rejected Vukov’s application not just on reviewable statutory grounds but
*** The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

alternately on non-reviewable discretionary grounds, there was no jurisdiction to
second guess the agency decision.
We agree with the district court. USCIS’s denial of Vukov’s petition mooted
his failure to adjudicate claims. “In general, when an administrative agency has
performed the action sought by a plaintiff in litigation, a federal court ‘lacks the
ability to grant effective relief,’ and the claim is moot.” Rosemere Neighborhood
Ass’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Pub. Utils. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). The district
court was also correct in holding that USCIS’s discretionary basis for that denial of
Vukov’s petition is non-reviewable because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprives
us of jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions. See also
Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir. 2002); Mamigonian
v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e therefore affirm Montero-
Martinez as good law, and hold that district courts have jurisdiction to hear cases
challenging final agency determinations respecting eligibility for the immigration
benefits enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) made on nondiscretionary
grounds. . . .”).
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --