Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealhearingtrialmotiondocketmotion to dismiss
jurisdictionappealhearingtrialmotiondocketmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Al Jibori; U.S. v.
View Case »
Kelso v. Department of State
View Case »
McDonnell Douglas; U.S. v.
View Case »
Golipour v. Moghaddam
View Case »
Perez v. USCIS
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kim v. USCIS

Facts

Min Jeong Kim filed a notice of appeal in her pending civil action against USCIS. USCIS subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. A review of the district court's docket revealed that there were no final or appealable orders available for the court to consider.

A review of the district court's docket confirms that, at this time, there are no appealable orders.

Issue

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear Kim's appeal against USCIS.

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear Kim's appeal against USCIS.

Rule

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949).

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949).

Analysis

The court analyzed the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 1292, determining that there were no final or appealable orders in the district court's docket. As a result, the court concluded that it could not exercise jurisdiction over Kim's appeal.

A review of the district court's docket confirms that, at this time, there are no appealable orders. Accordingly, we grant USCIS's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court granted USCIS's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Kim's motions for a trial and rehearing.

Accordingly, we grant USCIS's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Kim's motion for a trial, petition for rehearing, and motions to notify.

Who won?

USCIS prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the absence of appealable orders.

Accordingly, we grant USCIS's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

You must be