Abiy Yifru v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ABIY YIFRU,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1697
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00567-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: January 11, 2024
______________________
ABIY YIFRU, New York, NY, pro se.
ERIC J OHN SINGLEY , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1697 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

YIFRU v. US 2
PER CURIAM .
Abiy Yifru appeals pro se a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his com-
plaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Yifru emigrated from Ethiopia to the United States
in 2003 after he was selected through a visa lottery pro-
gram to receive a U.S. visa.1 See, e.g., Appx33–34,
Appx41.2 According to Mr. Yifru, upon winning the visa
lottery, he was “compelled” to complete the visa paperwork
by family members and friends of a “so-called [American]
sponsor.” Appx34. He ultimately submitted the visa pa-
perwork, attended a visa interview with a U.S. consular of-
ficer, paid a visa fee, and received his U.S. visa.
Appx35–38. Mr. Yifru asserts in this appeal that after ob-
taining his U.S. visa, the “Ethiopian immigration author-
ity” informed Mr. Yifru that he additionally needed a
clearance letter from his employer in Ethiopia to obtain his
exit visa. Appellant Br. 8. Mr. Yifru states that “he sub-
mitted a resignation letter, []his employer cleared him, and
he obtained the exit visa.” Id.; see also Appx41.
Mr. Yifru alleges that since moving to the United
States, he has endured homelessness and other hardships.
See Appellant Br. 8. During this time, Mr. Yifru has sought
1 This case was dismissed on the pleadings and no
factual challenges have been raised, so the allegations in
the complaint “set[] forth the uncontested factual backdrop
for this appeal.” Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v.
United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here,
we provide a summary of the complaint’s allegations rele-
vant to this appeal.
2 “Appx” refers to the appendix submitted with
Mr. Yifru’s brief.
Case: 23-1697 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

YIFRU v. US 3
various types of benefits from the U.S. government, includ-
ing unemployment compensation and rental subsidy
vouchers. Id.; see also Appx66–72.
In May 2022, Mr. Yifru filed a complaint against the
U.S. government in the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”).
See Appx28. His complaint alleged conduct spanning the
past twenty years but included just one cause of action un-
der the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. See, e.g.,
Appx30–31, 73; see generally Appx39–72. Mr. Yifru alleged
that he had a protected property interest in his employ-
ment contract with his employer in Ethiopia. Appx73. He
alleged that the government interfered with that employ-
ment contract by “compell[ing]” him to complete the visa
paperwork and immigrate to the United States, resulting
in a taking of his employment contract. See, e.g., Appx73.
The government moved to dismiss Mr. Yifru’s com-
plaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
After full briefing, the CFC issued an order granting the
motion. See Appx2. The CFC found that Mr. Yifru’s com-
plaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim un-
der the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Appx20.
The CFC also considered the complaint’s other extensive
allegations and apparent requests for relief. Appx20–27.
It found that they either failed to state a claim or did not
fall within the CFC’s jurisdiction. Id. The CFC accordingly
dismissed Mr. Yifru’s complaint. Appx1, Appx27. This ap-
peal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the CFC’s grant of a motion to dis-
miss for failure to state a claim. Inter-Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc. v. United States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2020). We also conduct de novo review of grants of
motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. In either of
these types of pleading-stage disputes, we accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
Case: 23-1697 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 01/11/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

YIFRU v. US 4
D ISCUSSION
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution provides that “private property
[shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensa-
tion.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. Government action is a
threshold requirement of a takings claim. See Huntleigh
USA Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Moreover, government action must result in a com-
pensable taking of a property interest for public use. Id. If
no property is taken—for example, if the government does
not actually assume a party’s contracts for public use and
instead simply “frustrat[es]” a party’s business expecta-
tions—there is no taking. See, e.g., id. at 1379–82.
Here, Mr. Yifru asserts that the U.S. consular officer
“orchestrated” the acts of private parties to coerce him to
complete the U.S. visa paperwork, and otherwise “com-
pelled” him to resign from his job in Ethiopia. On these
bases, Mr. Yifru claims a Fifth Amendment taking of his
employment contract in Ethiopia. But Mr. Yifru alleges no
facts to support that the conduct of a U.S. government offi-
cial led the United States to assume his employment con-
tract for public purposes. We thus agree with the CFC that
Mr. Yifru fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.
Mr. Yifru’s complaint also asks the CFC to instruct
other government agencies to provide Mr. Yifru with gov-
ernment benefits. But the CFC lacks such jurisdiction, as
it “has no general power to provide equitable relief against
the Government or its officers,” including as to Mr. Yifru’s
claims in this case. United States v. Tohono O’Odham Na-
tion, 563 U.S. 307, 313 (2011). We agree with the CFC that
these shortcomings with the relief sought further support
dismissal of Mr. Yifru’s complaint.
Case: 23-1697 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 01/11/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

YIFRU v. US 5
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Yifru’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, the
Court of Federal Claims order dismissing Mr. Yifru’s com-
plaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1697 Document: 15 Page: 5 Filed: 01/11/2024

-- 5 of 5 --