Gonzalez Torres v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 7/20/2018. (jpp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERTO LUCIANO GONZALEZ TORRES, 12 13 v. Plaintiff, 16 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 17 CASE NO. 17cv1840 JM(NLS) Defendants. 14 15 18 19 Plaintiff Alberto Luciano Gonzalez Torres moves for reconsideration of this 20 court’s April 12, 2018 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, 21 granting Defendants’ motion to dissolve the original preliminary injunction, and 22 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without leave 1 23 to amend (the “Order”). Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), 24 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), U.S. Immigration and Customs 25 Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) oppose the 26 motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters presented 27 appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the 28 1 The court incorporates the Order herein. -1- 17cv1840 1 court denies the motion for reconsideration. 2 3 DISCUSSION Reconsideration is generally appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented 4 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 5 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There 6 may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School 7 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 8 1993) (citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 9 Plaintiff raises several arguments previously addressed in the Order, and only 10 briefly discussed herein. In the main, Plaintiff contends that the court committed clear 11 error by concluding, under APA review, that Defendants’ challenged conduct was 12 neither arbitrary, capricious nor contrary to law. Defendants complied with DACA in 13 revoking Plaintiff’s DACA status by concluding, in their discretion, that he constituted 14 an enforcement priority based upon his involvement in alien smuggling (i.e. conduct 15 that violated 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and §1182(a)(6)(E)(i)).2 Plaintiff seeks to 16 limit Defendants’ ability to exercise their discretion in determining DHS’s enforcement 17 priority to only those situations where the DACA recipient possesses a disqualifying 18 criminal conviction, a public safety concern finding, a national security concern finding 19 or an EPS (Egregious Public Safety) finding. For the reasons set forth in the Order, 20 the court rejects this argument.3 21 22 2 The court again highlights that the veracity or falsity of Plaintiff’s involvement in human trafficking is not an issue before the court. Defendants’ proffer of proof 23 supports their conclusion that Plaintiff engaged in conduct that violated 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and §1182(a)(6)(E)(i). 24 3 The court further notes that Congress authorizes the Attorney General to 25 exercise broad discretion in the immigration context, see I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999), including the determination of deportability based upon 26 circumstances not involving a criminal conviction, an EPS finding, a public safety threat determination, or a national security threat determination. For example, those 27 circumstances may include the change in immigration status, involvement in alien smuggling, marriage fraud, drug abuse, etc. See 8 U.S.C. §1227. Contrary to 28 Plaintiff’s arguments, the so-called Kelly Memo neither expands nor limits DHS’s authority to exercise its discretion in determining enforcement priorities under the INA -2- 17cv1840 1 Plaintiff also argues that the November 17, 2017 NOIT, (ECF 39-6 at 9-10), 2 violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with adequate notice of the 3 “events or facts [DHS] w[as] relying on” in revoking his DACA status. Plaintiff 4 correctly asserts that the NOIT does not directly inform him of the basis and 5 circumstances for revocation of his DACA status. However, the NOIT made express 6 reference to this action and the first revocation of his DACA status. In any event, by 7 means of the on-going administrative proceedings and this action, Plaintiff does not 8 dispute that he had actual notice of the underlying basis and circumstances for 9 terminating his DACA status. Similarly, there is no showing that he suffered any 10 prejudice by such omission. 11 Finally, Plaintiff contends that his substantive due process rights were violated 12 because of the “determination of criminality made by a non-neutral arbiter.” (Motion 13 at p.25:6-7). Notably, Plaintiff cites scant authority to support this conclusion. 14 In every case in which a plaintiff challenges the actions of an executive official under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, he must demonstrate both that the official's conduct was conscience-shocking, [], and that the official violated one or more fundamental rights that are “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” 15 16 17 18 Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 651 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Washington v. 19 Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21 (1997)). Here, there is no indication that 20 Defendants engaged in any conscience-shocking or clearly arbitrary and unreasonable 21 conduct, or that factual determinations by duly constituted administrative bodies made 22 in the ordinary and normal course of an administrative proceeding violate the concept 23 of “ordered liberty.” Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot prevail on his substantive due 24 process claim. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 and DACA. -3- 17cv1840 1 In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: July 20, 2018 4 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge 5 6 cc: All parties 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 17cv1840

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?