Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12990
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-01244-GAP-KRS
MARKO MILAKOVICH,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
USCIS - ORLANDO,
MARGARET IGLESIAS,
individually,
PAULINE MCGAHEY,
individually,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 11, 2012)
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 8
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marko Milakovich, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of the
defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, in
an action alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, various
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and 18 U.S.C. § 242. On
appeal, Milakovich argues that: (1) the district court incorrectly concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction over: (a) his claim that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) violated his and his foreign-born, adopted sons’ due process
rights by failing to process Forms I-600 that he filed on behalf of his sons; (b) his
request for a grant of citizenship to his sons, under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401, 1431, and 1449;
(c) his request for a grant of “all lost Social Security benefits” resulting from
improper USCIS actions; and (d) his alternative request for a grant of legal permanent
resident (“LPR”) status to his sons, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255; and (2) the district court
improperly dismissed his claim against two USCIS employees under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and
erroneously failed to give him an opportunity to repair any deficiencies in his pro se
pleadings. After careful review, we affirm.
2
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 3 of 8
When evaluating a district court’s conclusions on a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo
and its factual findings for clear error. Zinni v. ER Solutions, Inc., 692 F.3d 1162,
1166 (11th Cir. 2012). We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim,
accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267, 1275
(11th Cir. 2012). Although pro se briefs are to be liberally construed, a pro se litigant
who offers no substantive argument on an issue in his initial brief abandons that issue
on appeal. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).1 We may
affirm on any ground that appears in the record, whether or not it was relied upon or
considered by the district court. Lanfear, 679 F.3d at 1275. A complaint is subject
to dismissal for failure to state a claim if it does not state a plausible claim for relief
on its face. Id. The allegations in the complaint must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all allegations in the
complaint are true. Id.
First, we are unpersuaded by Milakovich’s argument that the district court
erred in dismissing his claims against the USCIS. In order for a person to be deemed
1
As a result, Milakovich has abandoned any claims he raised before the district court but
failed to raise on appeal, including those under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Timson,
518 F.3d at 874.
3
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 4 of 8
a U.S. citizen at birth under § 1401, the person must have been (a) born either in the
United States or to at least one U.S. citizen; or (b) found in the United States while
under the age of five. 8 U.S.C. § 1401. In order for a child adopted by a U.S. citizen
parent to automatically acquire citizenship under § 1431, the child must be admitted
as an LPR. 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(3), (b). Section 1449 identifies the information that
should be included in a certificate of naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1449. The status of
an alien admitted into the United States may be adjusted to that of an LPR by the
Attorney General, at his discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). With the exception of
decisions related to applications for asylum, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review
a decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the authority for which is specified to be in the discretion of either official. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). Finally, § 242 is a criminal
statute that provides no basis for civil remedies. See Hanna v. Home Ins. Co., 281
F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1960);2 see also Otero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 832 F.2d 141, 141
(11th Cir. 1987) (holding that a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest
in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another).
2
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before
October 1, 1981.
4
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 5 of 8
To begin with, regardless of whether the district court had jurisdiction over
Milakovich’s claims under §§ 1401, 1431, and 1449, he failed to state a claim under
any of those statutes. His sons were not born either in the United States or to at least
one U.S. citizen; nor were they found in the United States while under the age of five.
Accordingly, Milakovich failed to show that his sons were U.S. citizens under §
1401. See 8 U.S.C. § 1401; Lanfear, 679 F.3d at 1275. Because his sons were not
LPRs, Milakovich failed to show that his sons were eligible for automatically
acquired citizenship under § 1431. See 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a)(3), (b). Because his sons
had not yet received certificates of naturalization, he failed to establish a right to
relief under § 1449. See 8 U.S.C. § 1449.
The district court also properly dismissed Milakovich’s claim under § 1255,
because the authority to grant an adjustment to LPR status is vested in the Attorney
General, and federal courts lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary
determination. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1255(a). Because he alleged no facts
establishing that his sons were eligible for social security benefits that were denied
to them, the district court also properly denied relief on this claim. See Lanfear, 679
F.3d at 1275.
To the extent that Milakovich sought relief under § 242, that statute is a
criminal statute that provides no basis for civil remedies. See Otero, 832 F.2d at 141;
5
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 6 of 8
Hanna, 281 F.2d at 303. Similarly, Milakovich has identified no authority for the
proposition that the defendants’ alleged violations of 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618 or the
USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual provide a basis for judicially cognizable relief.
Finally, to the extent that Milakovich sought relief with respect to the handling of his
sons’ I-600 applications, he has alleged no facts suggesting that, had the defendants
processed the applications more quickly, he or his sons would have received benefits
to which they were constitutionally entitled, and he does not dispute that he was no
longer entitled to file the applications after his sons arrived in the United States.
Next, we reject Milakovich’s claim that the district court erred in dismissing
his Bivens cause of action. Bivens allows for a claim against a federal agent who,
while acting under color of federal law, has violated the constitutional rights of an
individual. See Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004).
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after
serving it, or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21
days after the earlier of service of a responsive pleading or of a motion under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave, which should be freely given if the underlying facts or circumstances relied
upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Hall
6
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 7 of 8
v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). A party ordinarily
must be given at least one opportunity to amend before the district court dismisses the
complaint. Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005). A district
court need not, however, allow an amendment where it would be futile, i.e., where the
complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal. Hall, 367 F.3d at 1262-63.
In this case, Milakovich has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that either
individual defendant violated his or his sons’ constitutional rights. As we’ve
discussed above, he does not dispute that he was not entitled to file I-600 applications
after his sons arrived in the United States, and he has failed to explain how any delay
in processing the applications while he was overseas violated his or his sons’
constitutional rights. To the extent that he sought relief for the defendants’ alleged
failure to inform him of “corrective measures,” this claim is refuted by his own
admission that, after he and his sons arrived in the United States, he was instructed
to file additional forms, but declined to do so.
Milakovich’s argument that the district court should not have dismissed his
Bivens claims without giving him another opportunity to repair deficiencies in his pro
se pleadings in a third amended complaint is meritless. He has not indicated how he
would have cured the remaining deficiencies in his complaint, had he been permitted
7
Case: 12-12990 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 8 of 8
to do so, and nothing in the record suggests that another amendment would not have
been futile. See Hall, 367 F.3d at 1262-63.
AFFIRMED.
8