Angeles et al v. Napolitano et al
Filing
18
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 13 Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is Granted as to Plaintiffs' claims for review under the Mandamus Act and All Writs Act, and is Denied as to Plaintiffs' claims for re view under the APA and Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs' claims for review under the Mandamus Act and All Writs Act are Dismissed. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is Denied. Defendants shall file an answer to the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this order. The parties shall be accorded oral argument on a motion for summary judgment after the record for the courts consideration is complete. The parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference on Friday, 10/17/2014, at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 15B of the Annex before Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/29/2014. (rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
ALAN ANGELES, et al.
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
14
15
Case No.: 13-cv-00008-BTM-RBB
JEH C. JOHNSON, Secretary of
Homeland Security, et al.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
Defendants. 1
16
17
18
Plaintiffs Alan Angeles and Nataly Angeles are Mexican citizens
19
residing within this Court’s jurisdiction (Am. Compl. ¶ 1).2 They have both
20
filed applications for adjustment of status with United States Citizenship
21
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which were denied (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-
22
11). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ denial of their applications is
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 25(d), the
Court substitutes Jeh C. Johnson and the other Defendants listed in
footnote 1 of Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, for the Defendants listed in the Amended Complaint.
2
Unless otherwise noted, all facts herein are taken from the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 10), and all “¶” citations are references to paragraphs of
the Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”).
1
-1-
1
arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and seek a ruling from this Court that
2
they are, in fact, eligible for adjustment of status as derivative beneficiaries
3
of the Form I-1303 application filed by their grandfather on behalf of their
4
father in 1977 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) and § 1154(l) (Am. Compl. ¶¶
5
29, 31). Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
6
for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the following
7
reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
8
I. BACKGROUND
9
10
Plaintiffs’ grandfather, Luis Herrera Angeles, registered to immigrate
11
to the United States under the then existing Western Hemisphere Program
12
(“WHP”) at the beginning of October, 1976 (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). Luis
13
entered the United States as an immigrant on October 5, 1976 (Id. at ¶ 15).
14
On January 1, 1977, the WHP ended and was replaced with a preference
15
system (Id. at ¶ 16). On or about June 10, 1977, Luis filed a Form I-130 to
16
allow Plaintiffs’ father, Demetrio, to immigrate (Id. at ¶ 15).
On August 27, 1977, Luis’s Form I-130 for Demetrio was approved
17
18
and Demetrio was assigned to category “P2-2,” the preference designation
19
for an unmarried son or daughter of a lawful permanent resident under the
20
preference system that replaced the WHP (Am. Compl. ¶ 18; Doc 13-2,
21
Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B). On February 15, 1978, Demetrio entered the
22
United States as a lawful permanent resident (Am. Compl. ¶ 19). However,
23
Demetrio’s Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration form was not marked as
24
“P2-2,” but rather as “SA-1,” the designation for individuals immigrating
25
under the old WHP (Am. Comp. ¶ 19; Doc. 13-2, Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit
26
C).
27
28
3
Petition to Classify Status of Alien Relative for Issuance of Immigrant Visa.
-2-
1
Plaintiff Alan Angeles filed a Form I-485 application to adjust his
2
residency status on September 19, 2011. Plaintiff Nataly Angeles filed the
3
same form application on May 24, 2012. Both applications sought
4
adjustment of status as derivative beneficiaries of the Form I-130
5
application filed by their grandfather, Luis, on behalf of their father,
6
Demetrio. Defendants reviewed and denied these applications on May 31,
7
2012 and September 10, 2012, respectively (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-5).
8
Defendants’ denials explained that Plaintiffs were ineligible because
9
Demetrio had used his Form I-130 to immigrate, and thus the form was
10
unavailable for Plaintiffs to use to adjust their status under either 8 U.S.C.
11
§1255(i) or 8 U.S.C. §1154(1).
12
Plaintiffs filed the present action on January 2, 2013, and shortly
13
thereafter Defendants sent notice to Plaintiffs that they would reopen their
14
applications (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8). On April 10, 2013, Defendants sent
15
Plaintiffs notice of intent to deny the reopened application (Am. Compl. ¶
16
9). Both notices stated that Plaintiffs were seeking to establish Western
17
Hemisphere Priority Dates (Id.). Plaintiffs sent a timely response to
18
Defendants, clarifying that they were not trying to establish Western
19
Hemisphere Priority Dates, but were rather seeking benefits under 8 U.S.C.
20
§1255(i) and 8 U.S.C. §1154(l) (Am. Compl. ¶ 10). On July 18, 2013,
21
Defendants again denied Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications for the same reason
22
they had been previously denied (Doc. 13-2, Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A).
23
24
25
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal of complaints where
26
the court “lack[s] . . . subject-matter jurisdiction.” Federal courts are courts
27
of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Article III of
28
-3-
1
the United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress pursuant
2
thereto. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534,
3
541(1986). Thus, “[f]ederal courts have no power to consider claims for
4
which they lack subject-matter jurisdiction.” Wang ex rel. United States v.
5
FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he burden of
6
establishing . . . [that a cause lies within this limited jurisdiction] rests upon
7
the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
8
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of complaints which
10
“fail[] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In other words,
11
“[a] Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v.
12
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When reviewing a motion to
13
dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are taken as
14
true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks
15
Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).
16
However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
17
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal v.
18
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Evidence outside the complaint should
19
not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
20
claim. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925
21
(9th Cir. 2001). However, a document is not outside complaint, so as to
22
require treatment of a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, “if
23
the complaint specifically refers to the document and if its authenticity is not
24
questioned.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994). Lastly, a
25
court should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim unless it
26
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support
27
a claim entitling him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45
28
-4-
1
(1957); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (2001).
2
Although detailed factual allegations are not required, factual allegations
3
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
4
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
5
6
III. DISCUSSION
7
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint should be
8
dismissed, both due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to
9
state a claim. The Court will consider each argument in turn.
10
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
11
12
Plaintiffs have invoked this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1361, Mandamus Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act; 28 U.S.C. §
14
2201, Declaratory Judgment Act; and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,
15
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), right of review.
16
Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
17
mandamus claim because Plaintiffs do not have a right to the relief they are
18
seeking and other remedies will afford adequate relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
19
1361 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the
20
nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States
21
or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”); Kerr v. U.S.
22
Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (“The
23
remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary
24
situations.”); Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 603-04 (1984) (“§ 1361 is
25
intended to provide a remedy only if the plaintiff has exhausted all other
26
avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a nondiscretionary
27
duty.”).
28
-5-
1
Defendants also argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
2
all-writs claims because the All Writs Act is not an independent basis for
3
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (“all courts established by Act of
4
Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
5
respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of
6
law.”); United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977)
7
(recognizing “the power of a federal court to issue . . . commands under the
8
All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent
9
the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction
10
11
otherwise obtained.” (emphasis added)).
Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding their
12
claims pursuant to the Mandamus Act and the All Writs Act. Therefore,
13
those claims are dismissed.
14
However, Defendants have not contested Plaintiffs’ remaining bases
15
of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and APA right of review.
16
28 U.S.C. § 2201 grants federal courts jurisdiction to “declare the rights and
17
other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,
18
whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” In this case, Plaintiffs
19
are seeking a declaration of their right to adjustment of status. Additionally,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
§ 702 of the APA provides that “[a] person suffering [a] legal wrong
because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency
action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
thereof,” and § 706 empowers the court to “hold unlawful and set aside
agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” Plaintiffs are asking this Court to review the Department of Homeland
28
-6-
1
Security agency decision to deny them an adjustment of status, and are
2
entitled to such review under § 702.
3
Accordingly, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to
4
consider Plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 5 U.S.C. §
5
701 et seq.
6
7
B. Failure to State a Claim
8
8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1) provides that “an alien physically present in [the]
9
United States . . . who is the beneficiary (including a spouse or child of the
10
principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 1153(d) of this title)
11
of . . . a petition4 for classification under section 1154 of this title that was
12
filed with the Attorney General on or before April 30, 2001 . . . may apply to
13
the Attorney General for the adjustment of his or her status to that of an
14
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” The parties disagree as
15
to whether Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of a valid petition for classification for
16
purposes of §1255(i)(1).
17
Plaintiffs contend that the Form I-130 submitted by their grandfather,
18
Luis, on behalf of their father, Demetrio, was approved but never used
19
because Demetrio’s classification of admission on his Immigrant Visa and
20
Alien Registration was marked as “SA-1,” a WHP designation that did not
21
require a Form I-130. Plaintiffs reason that, had Demetrio used the Form I-
22
130, his admission status would have been “P2-2,” the category for a child
23
of a permanent resident under the WHP system. Plaintiffs contend they
24
are entitled to use Demetrio’s approved but unused Form I-130 to qualify
25
for adjustment of their status. Defendants argue that, under the applicable
26
27
28
4
A relative alien petition can be based on Forms I-130, I-360, I-600, I-800.
Here at issue is a Form I-130.
-7-
1
law at the time, Demetrio could only gain admission to the United States
2
with a labor certification5 or a valid Form I-130, and because he lacked a
3
labor certificate, he must have used his Form I-130. Defendants emphasize
4
that Demetrio’s immigrant visa includes an annotation in the labor
5
certification box showing that Demetrio was exempt with the words “I-130
6
attached” typewritten below – however, the Form I-130 is not included as
7
an attachment to the immigrant visa provided as Defendants’ Exhibit C.
8
The pleadings and attachments thereto make several conflicting
9
factual assertions, resolution of which is necessary to answer the legal
10
question of whether Plaintiffs qualify for adjustment of status under 8
11
U.S.C. § 1255(i). First, the parties dispute whether or not Demetrio actually
12
used the Form I-130 that Luis filed on his behalf when completing the
13
immigration process, or instead immigrated by “following to join” his father
14
under the WHP after its amendment on January 1, 1977. Second, the
15
parties dispute the meaning of Demetrio’s immigrant visa classification
16
under the SA-1 category, whether or not the Consular Officer at the
17
American Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, correctly used that designation to
18
classify Demetrio, and consequently, whether that classification shows that
19
Demetrio was admitted under the WHP.
20
While the parties agree that the SA-1 designation was given to
21
individuals immigrating under the WHP, Plaintiffs take this designation as
22
proof that Demetrio immigrated under the WHP, without using the Form I-
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
The WHP operated on a “first-come, first served basis,” with the only
restriction being that an alien entering the country to perform skilled or
unskilled labor was required to obtain a certification from the Secretary of
Labor indicating that his entry would not adversely affect the American
labor market. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(A) (1965). Parents, spouses
and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents were exempt from
this requirement.
-8-
1
130. Plaintiffs argue that had Demetrio immigrated as an unmarried child
2
of a permanent resident, i.e., under the Form I-130, the proper immigrant
3
visa designation at the time would have been a P2-2, offering evidence to
4
that effect. Plaintiffs do not believe that the SA-1 designation was a
5
mistake, given that it was made by a Consular Officer and later
6
independently inspected by an employee of the former Immigration and
7
Naturalization Service upon Demetrio’s entry into the United States.
8
Plaintiffs also state that the SA-1 designation matches the “w/h” state/area
9
designation, also appearing on Demetrio’s immigration visa, which Plaintiffs
10
contend is reasonably interpreted as “western/hemisphere.” Plaintiffs
11
argue that had Demetrio been admitted under the Form I-130 instead of the
12
WHP, his state/area designation would have been his birth country,
13
Mexico.
14
Without explicitly stating so, Defendants appear to argue that the SA-
15
1 designation was a mistake, since such designation marks Demetrio as a
16
WHP recipient in his own right. Defendants argue that Demetrio could not
17
have immigrated under the WHP, as a child “following to join” his father per
18
8 U.S.C. 1101(A)(27) (1969), because his immigration occurred in February
19
of 1978, over one year after the WHP was amended to require a labor
20
certification even of close relatives who were “following to join” a WHP
21
immigrant. The evidence before the Court does not show Demetrio
22
possessing a labor certification at the time of his immigration. Thus,
23
according to Defendants, Demetrio must have immigrated under an
24
exemption, and specifically by using the Form I-130 as a way around the
25
labor certificate requirement. This conclusion, however, assumes facts not
26
in evidence.
27
28
-9-
1
Because the standard on a motion to dismiss requires the Court to
2
construe allegations of material fact in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs,
3
and accept them as true, Plaintiffs’ allegation that the Form I-130 remained
4
unused when Demetrio immigrated to the United States must be accepted
5
over Defendants’ contrary allegations. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v.
6
Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Consequently, Plaintiffs’
7
assertions that they filed the Form I-485 Applications for Adjustment of
8
Status, still qualify for adjustment on the basis of their father’s unused Form
9
I-130, and that USCIS nevertheless denied their applications raises a
10
cognizable cause of action for judicial review of agency action under the
11
APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. Additionally, given the nature of
12
the allegations raised in the pleadings and exhibits thereto, it is premature
13
to determine whether Plaintiffs do or do not meet the legal qualifications for
14
adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Such determination is best
15
suited for a motion for summary judgment with oral argument. Since this is
16
an APA action, the Court may be limited in its scope of review, that is,
17
whether substantial evidence supports the agency fact finding and whether
18
the decision was legally erroneous. See, e.g., Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320
19
F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that an agency’s factual findings
20
must be upheld “if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
21
evidence in the record”); Bonnichsen v. U.S., 367 F.3d 864, 880 n. 19 (9th
22
Cir. 2004) (“substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
23
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”)
24
(internal citation omitted).
25
26
27
28
- 10 -
IV. CONCLUSION
1
2
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
3
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ motion to
4
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’
5
claims for review under the Mandamus Act and All Writs Act, and is
6
DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for review under the APA and Declaratory
7
Judgment Act. Plaintiffs’ claims for review under the Mandamus Act and
8
All Writs Act are DISMISSED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
9
state a claim is DENIED. Defendants shall file an answer to the Plaintiffs’
10
Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this order. The parties
11
shall be accorded oral argument on a motion for summary judgment after
12
the record for the court’s consideration is complete. The parties shall
13
appear before the Court for a status conference on Friday, October 17,
14
2014, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 15B of the Annex.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: September 29, 2014
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?