Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges
Abdirahman H. 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
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04613
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges et al., Judge Tostrud dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit of a legal permanent resident seeking to force U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to conduct his naturalization interview, because the petitioner failed to respond to the government's motion to dismiss.
Legal permanent residents who have applied for U.S. naturalization and are awaiting interviews from USCIS, particularly those who have filed or may file federal lawsuits to compel action. This ruling also serves as a reminder to all federal court litigants — especially those without legal representation — that failing to respond to a motion to dismiss within the court's deadline can result in automatic dismissal of their case.
What happened
In Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges et al. (No. 25-cv-4613), Abdirahman H., a legal permanent resident, applied for U.S. citizenship on June 6, 2023. A required interview was scheduled for November 16, 2023, but was canceled and never rescheduled. After more than two years passed without action, Abdirahman filed a federal lawsuit on December 12, 2025, asking the court to order immigration officials to conduct his naturalization interview.
The government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on February 20, 2026. Under the court's local rules, Abdirahman had 21 days to file a written response opposing that motion. Abdirahman did not respond within that deadline and had still not responded by the time the court issued its ruling.
Judge Tostrud granted the government's motion to dismiss, relying on the established rule in this court that failing to respond to a motion to dismiss counts as a waiver. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Abdirahman is not permanently barred from bringing the claim again in the future.
The detailed version
- Abdirahman H. v. Luis R. Borges · No. 0:25-cv-04613
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 2, 2026
Background
Petitioner Abdirahman H. is a legal permanent resident of the United States. He filed an application for naturalization (the legal process for becoming a U.S. citizen) on June 6, 2023. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) scheduled a required naturalization interview for November 16, 2023, but that interview was canceled and was never rescheduled.
After waiting more than two years for USCIS to reschedule the interview, Abdirahman filed this federal lawsuit on December 12, 2025. He sought a court order compelling the respondents — federal immigration officials including the Acting Field Office Director of USCIS in Minneapolis, the national Director of USCIS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Acting Attorney General — to conduct his naturalization interview. Note: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), which allows automatic substitution of public officials sued in their official capacity when they leave office, Markwayne Mullin was substituted for Kristi Noem and Todd Blanche was substituted for Pamela Bondi.
Procedural History
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 20, 2026. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(c)(2), the opposing party — here, Abdirahman — had 21 days to file a written response to that motion. Abdirahman did not file a response by the deadline and had not filed any response as of the date of the court's ruling.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud granted the motion to dismiss based solely on Abdirahman's failure to respond. The court cited its well-established local practice that a party's failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver of opposition to that motion. The court cited multiple prior decisions from this district applying that principle in the context of motions to dismiss, including cases affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The court did not reach the substantive merits of the motion to dismiss — that is, the court did not analyze whether Abdirahman's underlying legal claims were valid. The dismissal was granted entirely on procedural grounds.
Dismissal Without Prejudice
Critically, the action was dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means that the case is closed, but Abdirahman is not permanently barred from refiling the same or a similar claim in the future. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar refiling.
Summary of Outcome
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.