Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abdirahman H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Luis R. Borges, Acting Field Office
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Joseph B.
Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Washington, D.C.;
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department
of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.;
and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice,1
Respondents.
File No. 25-cv-4613 (ECT/LIB)
OPINION AND ORDER
Marc Prokosch, Prokosch Law LLC, Roseville, MN, for Petitioner Abdirahman H.
Justin Merak Page, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents
Luis R. Borges, Joseph B. Edlow, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche.
Petitioner Abdirahman H. is a legal permanent resident of the United States. 	On
June 6, 2023, Abdirahman submitted an application for naturalization. 	A naturalization
interview was scheduled for November 16, 2023, but that interview was canceled. 	The
interview was not rescheduled, and on December 12, 2025, Abdirahman filed suit seeking
an order requiring Defendants to conduct Abdirahman’s naturalization interview.
1 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Markwayne Mullin is substituted for Kristi Noem,
and Todd Blanche is substituted for Pamela Bondi. Neither Kristi Noem nor Pamela Bondi
are sued in their individual capacities.
CASE 0:25-cv-04613-ECT-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On February 20, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. ECF No. 4.
Under the Local Rules, Abdirahman had twenty-one days to respond to the motion. D.
Minn. LR 7.1(c)(2). Abdirahman did not respond by that deadline and has not responded
since. See Docket.
A petitioner’s failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver. See, e.g., Hansen
v. Westly, No. 24-cv-2653 (ECT/JFD), 2024 WL 4851300, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2024)
(stating plaintiff's “failure to respond to [defendants’] motion constitutes a waiver, and the
motion would be granted on just this basis”); Daniel v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 22-cv-
3184 (ECT/DLM), 2023 WL 6392404, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 2023) (noting that a failure
to respond to a motion “constitutes a waiver”), aff’d, No. 23-3476, 2024 WL 3634227 (8th
Cir. Aug. 2, 2024); Hernandez-Diaz v. Equifax Info. Servs., No. 22-cv-2302 (JRT/JFD),
2023 WL 2025123, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2023) (“As a preliminary matter, the Court
interprets a failure to respond to a motion to dismiss as a waiver and voluntary dismissal
of those claims.”); Cox v. Harpsted, No. 22-cv-0478 (PJS/DJF), 2022 WL 16541087, at *1
(D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2022) (accepting R. & R. and agreeing that the plaintiff’s “failure to
respond 	to 	defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	amounts 	to 	waiver”). 	For 	this 	reason,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted, and this action will be dismissed.
CASE 0:25-cv-04613-ECT-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED.
2. 	This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 2, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-04613-ECT-LIB Doc. 9 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3