Ying Lin; Yi Lin v. CHRISTOPHER M. HEFFRON, Field Office Director for the Charlotte Field Office of the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1380
YING LIN; YI LIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. HEFFRON, Field Office Director for the Charlotte Field Office of the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General of the United States; ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security; UR M. JADDOU, Director of United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00647-MOC-DCK)
Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: January 27, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Bruno J. Bembi, LAW OFFICE OF BRUNO J. BEMBI, Hempstead, New
York, for Appellants. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Julia K. Wood, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ying Lin and Yi Lin appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint
challenging the Defendants’ decision denying Ying Lin derivative asylee status under 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Balfour Beatty Infrastructure,
Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 855 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2017). Dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate “if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Upon our review, we conclude that the district court properly found that it was
without jurisdiction to consider the agency’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --