Sergey Donskoy v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• In the beginning of 2025, Petitioner filed a complaint seeking a district court mandate compelling the Respondent’s duty to adjudicate the Petitioner’s 1-140 petition for alien worker filed with USCIS in 2020 in the field it actually sought and without discriminating against Petitioner on the individual basis within the class of award recipients, and also taking into account other claims, previously not brought for court review or not actually litigated. The district court dismissed the complaint, applying the law of “claim preclusion”, referencing to the Petitioner’s complaint which in 2021 sought, on different claims, a court declaration that Petitioner was entitled to the “extraordinarily ability” visa (Ell immigrant status). On appeal, the court of appeals afforded a prolonged extension of time to Respondent for filing its answering brief, but later, on the Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance, affirmed the district court decision, based on “insubstantial appeal” standard. Petitioner hereby presents the following questions for the Court’s consideration:

1. Whether the legal test examining the transactional nucleus of facts shared between causes of action, which evolved as common law of “res judicata doctrine” for the purpose of estoppel, is unconstitutional.

2. Whether the court of appeals may not take for review on the merits and grant a motion for summary disposition at “any time” during prolonged extension of time given for filing the answering brief.

3. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming, based on “insubstantial appeal” standard, the district court dismissal of the Petitioner’s complaint.