BUGONI v. EDLOW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PIERO A. BUGONI, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-03966 (UNA)
)
)
JOSEPH B. EDLOW 	)
In his official capacity, 	)
)
)
Respondent. 	)
Memorandum Opinion
The court is in receipt of Piero A. Bugoni’s pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus and his
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	The court grants the IFP application and
dismisses the petition.
Petitioner “works in Specialty Occupations, for hire, as a W2 Employee, as director of and
worker for a sole person corporation, . . . and occasionally as an unincorporated Sole Proprietor.”
Pet. at 2 ¶ 7. He states he “is aggrieved” by the “irreparable displacement in employment and loss
of lucrative business . . . caused by the H1B Visa Program since at least 2008.” Id. 	Petitioner
seeks to compel Respondent Edlow, as Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, “to perform a mandatory duty owed to the Public on Constitutional grounds, and in
abatement of criminal activity connected to the H1B Visa Program.” Id. at 3 ¶ 8. Petitioner asserts
that “foreign entities and nationals” are abusing government programs, which “is adversely
affecting Americans.” Id. ¶ 9. He posits that Respondent has a “a non-discretionary duty to keep
[such] unlawful conduct . . . from happening in the first place.” Id. ; see id. at 4 ¶ 12 (concluding
Case 1:25-cv-03966-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
that “Official capacity to cease criminal activity connected to H1B Visa abuse is wholly
Respondents”).
The mandamus statute confers upon federal district courts jurisdiction “to compel an
officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is “an option of last resort,” Illinois v. Ferriero,
60 F.4th 704, 714 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citation omitted), that is available only if “(1) the plaintiff has
a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate
remedy available to plaintiff.” Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan,
709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). If “all three of these threshold requirements” are
not met, the court must dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ferriero, 60
F.4th at 714. 	“In other words, mandamus jurisdiction under § 1361 merges with the merits.”
Lovitky v. Trump, 949 F.3d 753, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
A “court may properly issue a writ of mandamus only if the duty to be performed is
ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined.” Shoshone Bannock Tribes
v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (cleaned up). Whether to investigate the criminal
activity alleged “is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler
v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Petitioner’s vague assertions do not establish a clear right
to relief or a clear duty on Respondent to act. The court therefore dismisses the case, by separate
order.
_________/s/_____________
AMIR H. ALI
Date: April 1, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03966-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 2