United States v. 2020-05-07 | 18-16341 | 2233 PARADISE ROAD, LLC V. JOHN KELLY | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

2233 PARADISE ROAD, LLC, DBA
Cash Factory USA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of the
Homeland Security; LORI L.
SCIALABBA, Director of U.S.
Citizenship & Immigration Services
(USCIS),
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16341
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01018-APG-VCF
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 27, 2020
**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff 2233 Paradise Road, LLC, timely appeals from the district court’s
FILED
MAY 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Director of United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("the agency") and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in this action challenging the agency’s denial of Plaintiff’s
petition for an "H-1B visa" on behalf of Songhua Hu for a position of Chief
Operating Officer. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
After Plaintiff filed this appeal, Plaintiff informed us that Hu had resigned.
The visa petition before us pertains specifically to Hu and cannot be transferred to
another individual. Plaintiff asserts only that Hu "may seek to renew the
employment relationship in the future." (Emphasis added.) No live controversy
remains, and Plaintiff’s speculation is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n, 891 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that
"[t]he assertion that [a plaintiff] could conceivably return to her old job, without
more," is insufficient to confer jurisdiction).
We dismiss the appeal and remand with instructions for the district court to
consider whether to vacate its judgment and dismiss the complaint. U.S. Bankcorp
Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 24–25 (1994); Dilley v. Gunn, 64
F.3d 1365, 1370–71 (9th Cir. 1995).
APPEAL DISMISSED and CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
2