Plascencia-De Haro v. Holder et al

Filing 50

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/16/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016)

1
2
3

KEVIN M. CRABTREE, ESQ. (CA 238162)
Email: [e-mail]
Law Office of Robert L. Lewis
428 13th Street, 7th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5

Attorney for Plaintiff
GLORIA PLASCENCIA-DE HARO

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
10

GLORIA PLASCENCIA-DE HARO,
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General of the United States;
et al.

15

Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
) Case No.: 3:14-cv-03058-HSG
)
) Agency No. A 070-780-135
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

I.

1
2
3

The Court’s August 1, 2016 Order denied the Government’s
motion for summary judgment.

See Dkt. No. 48.

4

Plaintiff Gloria Plascencia-De Haro brought this action

5

against Defendants asserting (1) a claim for declaratory and

6

injunctive relief against the DHS Defendants and Attorney

7

General for attempting to remove her without a valid removal

8

order and (2) an Administrative Procedure Act claim against the

9

USCIS Defendants to seek judicial review of the denial of her

10

application to adjust status as the parent of a U.S. citizen.

11

The Court dismissed with prejudice the first cause of

12

action for lack of jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act on March

13

11, 2016.

14

On August 1, 2016, the Court denied the USCIS Defendant’s

15

Motion for Summary Judgment on the APA claim, construed

16

Plaintiff’s opposition as a cross-motion for summary judgment

17

seeking remand pursuant to FRCP 56(f)(1), and ordered the

18

adjustment of status application remanded to USCIS.

19
20

The Court having considered all arguments and evidence of
the parties, judgment is hereby entered as follows:

21
22
23

II.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction with regard to

24

the second cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

25

question) and may grant relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701 (APA)

JUDGMENT - No. 3:14-cv-03058-HSG - 1

1

/

2

/

3

III.

4

The September 19, 2014, USCIS decision administratively

5

closing Plaintiff’s application is construed as a denial of such

6

application.

7

Administrative Procedure Act.
The decision contains no findings relating to Plaintiff’s

8
9

The Court finds the decision violated the

evidence or analysis thereof, which was probative of whether she

10

had timely departed in compliance with an order of voluntary

11

departure and whether she could have been inspected and admitted

12

by an immigration officer upon her alleged return to the United

13

States.

14

capricious, and not in accordance with law within the meaning of

15

the APA.

Accordingly, the Court finds the decision is arbitrary,

The September 19, 2014, USCIS decision is vacated and the

16
17

application is remanded to USCIS for further proceedings

18

consistent with this judgment and entry of a new decision.

19

/

20

/

21

/

22

/

23

/

24

/

25

/

JUDGMENT - No. 3:14-cv-03058-HSG - 2

1

/

2

/
IV.

3
4

The Court makes no order regarding costs of suit.

5

Plaintiff may file a motion for fees and costs pursuant to the

6

Equal Access to Justice Act.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.

9
10

DATED:

August 16, 2016

11
12

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

JUDGMENT - No. 3:14-cv-03058-HSG - 3