Mendez Rojas et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying defendants' 38 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

CONCELY del CARMEN MENDEZ
ROJAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

v.
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, in his
official capacity, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

)
) CASE NO. C16-1024RSM
)
)
) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
INTRODUCTION

18

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
19
20

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

21

Dkt. #38. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims because any

22

potential harm is too remote and speculative to qualify as an injury in fact. Dkt. #38 at 4-9.

23

Defendants further argue that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’

24

claims because they can raise their claims in their immigration proceedings. Id. at 9-12.
25
26

Plaintiffs essentially respond that the Court has already decided these arguments against

27

Defendants. Dkt. #40. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs and

28

DENIES Defendants’ motion.
ORDER
PAGE - 1

II.

1

The Court has previously set forth the background of this action and incorporates it by

2
3

BACKGROUND

reference herein. Dkt. #37 at 1-5.

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

A. Legal Standard
6

This Court must dismiss a Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) if, considering the factual

7
8

allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the

9

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other

10

enumerated categories of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or

11

controversy within the meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any
12
13

jurisdictional statute. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663

14

(1962); see also D.G. Rung Indus., Inc. v. Tinnerman, 626 F.Supp. 1062, 1063 (W.D. Wash.

15

1986); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346. When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule

16

12(b)(1), the Court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence to
17
18

resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. See McCarthy v. United

19

States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052, 109 S. Ct. 1312, 103 L.

20

Ed. 2d 581 (1989); see also Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir.

21

1983).

A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff

22

establishes otherwise. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114
23
24

S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); see also Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873

25

F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject

26

matter jurisdiction. See Stock West, 873 F.2d at 1225.

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

B. Standing

2

This Court has previously reviewed Defendants’ arguments as to standing in its

3

previous Order on class certification. Defendants acknowledge that fact, but assert that their

4

motion to dismiss is based on “further develop[ed] arguments”. Dkt. #38 at 4 fn. 3. The Court

5

remains unpersuaded. As it previously explained, Plaintiffs are not challenging any denial, past
6
7

or future, of asylum. Dkt. #37 at 8. Rather, they challenge the denial of an opportunity to

8

apply within the one-year deadline, which they allege is caused by Defendants’ failure to

9

provide adequate notice of the deadline and an alleged failure to implement a uniform method

10

through which Plaintiffs can comply with that deadline. Id. The Ninth Circuit has made clear

11

that Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have a statutory right to apply for asylum:
12

Section 201(b) of the Refugee Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, conferred upon all
aliens a statutory right to apply for asylum. Orantes-Hernandez v.
Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 553 (9th Cir. 1990). That right may be violated
by a pattern or practice that forecloses the opportunity to apply. See Id. at
564 (upholding finding that coercion of aliens to accept voluntary departure
violated their right to apply for asylum). The same provision of the
Refugee Act required the Attorney General to establish means by which
aliens, regardless of status, may apply for political asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Campos v. Nail, 43 F.3d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs allege that the failures by

20

Defendants have caused them to lose this right, and they must now rely on an immigration

21

judge to find, in his or her discretion, that either changed circumstances or extraordinary

22

circumstances justified their delayed filings. Dkt. #30 at 2; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and 8
23
24

C.F.R. § § 208.4(a)(2)(B), a(4)-(5).

If Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, they have lost the

25

statutory right to apply for asylum and must now depend on the discretion of an adjudicator to

26

apply. None of Defendants’ arguments or legal authority persuade this Court to reach a

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1
2
3
4

different conclusion that it previously reached. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have demonstrated standing.
C. Jurisdiction
Defendants next argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the claims made by

5

Plaintiffs in this case, and that such claims must go to review through the immigration
6
7

proceedings and ultimately in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. #38 at 9-12. As with their

8

standing arguments, the Court continues to remain unpersuaded. Again, the Court finds that

9

Defendants’ arguments misconstrue Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to

10

make any finding with respect to how immigration judges analyze the extraordinary

11

circumstances exception or on the asylum applications themselves. Rather, they allege that
12
13

Defendants’ action or inactions have deprived them of a statutory right to apply for asylum by

14

foreclosing their opportunity to apply within the one year statutory time period. Dkt. #37 at 9.

15

Nothing that Defendants present in the current motion persuades the Court that it should reach

16

a different conclusion. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to
17
18

hear Plaintiffs’ claims.
IV.

19

CONCLUSION

20

Having reviewed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Opposition thereto and Reply in

21

support thereof, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS

22

that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #38) is DENIED.
23
24

DATED this 28 day of March, 2017.

25

A

26
27

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER
PAGE - 4