Yolanda Asparren v. Alejandro Mayorkas

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA ASPARREN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his
official capacity and UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-17118
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03647-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 17, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-17118
Yolanda Asparren appeals pro se the district court’s denial of her request for
preliminary injunctive relief in her action seeking a refund and waiver of certain
immigration-related filing fees. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying
preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)
(listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press
Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 752–53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review).
To the extent that Asparren’s request for injunctive relief is based on her
husband’s payment of an immigration-related filing fee, we affirm the denial of
relief for lack of standing because the husband has voluntarily dismissed the appeal
as to himself. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)
(requiring actual injury-in-fact that will likely be redressed by a favorable
decision).
To the extent that Asparren seeks an order compelling the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue a prompt decision on her request for
a fee waiver, we dismiss that portion of the appeal as moot because a decision
denying the request for a fee waiver was issued on November 5, 2012. See Hemp
Indus. Ass’n v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 333 F.3d 1082, 1085 n. 3 (9th Cir.2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-17118
(explaining that appeal is moot when interim events have eradicated effects of
alleged violation).
All pending motions are DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED in part
and DISMISSED as moot in part.

-- 3 of 3 --