Bora Erdem v. United States ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2003
BORA ERDEM; AISE HUMEYRA ERDEM; TAYYIBE MISEM ERDEM;
MUSTAFA ERDEM,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; TRACY RENAUD, Senior Official performing the
duties of the Director; TERRI ROBINSON, Acting Director, USCIS National
Benefits Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00506-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: November 2, 2021 Decided: January 7, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bora Erdem, Aise Humeyra Erdem, Tayyibe Misem Erdem, Mustafa Erdem, Appellants
Pro Se. Michelle Marie Ramus, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Bora and Aise Erdem, along with their children, Tayyibe and Mustafa
(collectively, “the Erdems”), who are natives and citizens of Turkey, appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the civil
action that the Erdems brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
§§ 701-706. Specifically, the district court relied on our decision in Lee v. U.S. Citizenship
& Immigr. Servs., 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010), to hold that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to review the Erdems’ claims related to the denial of their applications for
adjustment of status. Upon review of the parties’ arguments on appeal in conjunction with
the record and the relevant authorities, we discern no error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. Erdem v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-00506-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va.
Aug. 24, 2020). 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