A. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes
that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); St.
Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283
, 288-89 (1938).
Because "subject-matter jurisdiction is an `Art. III as well as a
statutory requirement[,] no action of the parties can confer
subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'" Akinseye v.
District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting
Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxite de Guinea,
456 U.S. 694
, 702 (1982)). On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Evans v.
B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642
, 647 (4th Cir. 1999); Rasul v.
Bush, 215 F. Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2002) (Kotelly, J.) (citing
McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178
(1936)). The court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction only if "`it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief" Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd.,
315 F.3d 338
, 343 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41