Maria del Carmen Grajales Cortes; Diana Marcela Guingue Grajales v. Loren K. Miller, Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S. Citizenship

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3379
___________________________
Maria del Carmen Grajales Cortes; Diana Marcela Guingue Grajales
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Loren K. Miller, Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns;
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his
official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Ur Jaddou, Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity as well as her
successor and assigns; Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Phillip Slattery,
Director, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as
well as his successors and assigns; Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S.
Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns
Defendants - Appellees
------------------------------
American Immigration Council; American Immigration Lawyers Association
Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)
___________________________
No. 23-3520
___________________________
Lauro Ybarra; Blanca Ortiz Martinez
Plaintiffs - Appellants

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
v.
Loren K. Miller, Director, Nebraska Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns;
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his
official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Ur Jaddou, Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity as well as her
successor and assigns; Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns; Phillip Slattery,
Director, National Visa Center, U.S. Department of State, in his official capacity as
well as his successors and assigns; Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S.
Department of State, in his official capacity as well as his successors and assigns
Defendants - Appellees
------------------------------
American Immigration Council; American Immigration Lawyers Association
Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: May 9, 2024
Filed: December 17, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the United States are generally
ineligible for immigrant visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
may waive this ineligibility. Multiple plaintiffs who had filed waiver applications
on behalf of their family members sued officials in USCIS, the U.S. Department of
State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, alleging that they had
unreasonably delayed adjudicating their waiver applications and scheduling their
visa interviews. When the case was submitted, all but two cases had been rendered
moot. Since submission, the two remaining plaintiffs have had their waiver
applications approved or their interviews scheduled. Because these plaintiffs have
received “all the relief [they] might have won in [the courtroom],” their cases are
moot, too. FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 240 (2024); see also Mercado v. Miller, No.
23-16007, Dkt. No. 58 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) (action rendered moot after USCIS
approved appellants’ waivers).
The Appellants have failed to show that “there is a reasonable expectation that
the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again,” and we
conclude that their cases do not fall within the mootness exception of capable of
repetition yet evading review. Whitfield v. Thurston, 3 F.4th 1045, 1047 (8th Cir.
2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)); see
also Mercado, slip op. at 2 (rejecting same argument).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and Appellants’ motion to
issue ruling is DENIED.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --