Mukhtar v. Lambrecht

── Mukhtar v. Lambrecht ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-1451 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 8, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ AZIZA MUKHTAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-1451 ANDREW LAMBRECHT, Field Office Director, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services; JOSEPH B. EDLOW, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; TODD BLANCHE, Acting United States Attorney General; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, United States Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendants - Appellees. * _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01970-REB) _________________________________ Catherine A. Chan, Chan Law Firm P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), the current Field * Office Director of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, Joseph B. Edlow, is automatically substituted for the former Director, Ur M. Jaddou. The current Acting United States Attorney General, Todd Blanche, is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi. The current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, is automatically substituted for former Secretary Kristi Noem.  Appellate Case: 24-1451 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 2 Michael C. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado (J. Bishop Grewell, Acting United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ CARSON, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ The doctrine of mootness rests on a simple principle: the controversy that existed at a litigation’s commencement may dissipate before its conclusion. Because the Constitution requires an actual controversy, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a moot case. We evaluate mootness claim by claim and decide whether a case is moot as to each form of relief sought. Generally, a case becomes moot once the plaintiff obtains all the relief she sought in her complaint. Plaintiff Aziza Mukhtar brought this action after the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied her application for lawful permanent resident status. In her complaint, Plaintiff asked the district court to order USCIS to set aside the decision and issue a new decision. While the action was pending, USCIS did just that. It reopened the application, sent a Request for Evidence (“RFE”), and issued a new decision denying the application after Plaintiff failed to respond to the RFE. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff’s case was moot because she obtained the relief she sought in her complaint. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s dismissal. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 2