Cruz-Gonzalez ex rel. Her Minor Child D.M.S.C. v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 04 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-5727 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | PRISCILA CRUZ-GONZALEZ, on behalf of her minor child D.M.S.C., Plaintiff, v. JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security; JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States; SARAH SALDANA, Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and THOMAS DECKER, Field Office Director, Defendants. |
Plaintiff moves this court to enjoin her expedited removal from the United States on various legal and constitutional grounds. Following the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond's May 23, 2017 opinion in Osorio-Martinez, et al., and the Third Circuit's 2016 decision in Castro, this Court will adopt that line of reasoning and deny Priscilla Cruz-Gonzalez's petition. This Court further relies on and adopts Judge Diamond's opinion in Osorio-Martinez in concluding this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court is aware the holding in Osorio-Martinez is not binding; however, it is instructive in this Court's review of Plaintiff's petition. Furthermore, although this Court has yet to rule on the pending motions, this Court incorporates Plaintiff's arguments from their motion to amend the complaint and the Government's opposing papers in response.
Plaintiff Priscilla Cruz-Gonzalez, and her minor child D.M.S.C., fled El Salvador for the United States seeking asylum due to the ongoing violence of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, otherwise known as MS-13. MS-13, originally founded in Los Angeles in the late 1980s, is active throughout El Salvador, Honduras, and many cities across the United States. Many Central Americans flee the gang violence in their home country expecting a safer life in the United States. However, MS-13s ubiquity in the United States has forced this country to take a closer look at illegal immigration.
Twenty (20) year old Cruz-Gonzalez fled El Salvador with her then three-year (3) old daughter, D.M.S.C., and entered the United States in early 2016. Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter were first detained by United States Customs and Immigration Enforcement ("ICE") in 2016 and taken to Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes, Texas. While detained, Border Patrol agents issued expedited removal orders against Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Cruz-Gonzalez petitioned for asylum under fear of violence and persecution back in El Salvador; asylum officers denied her request after they determined there was a lack of "credible fear of persecution" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter were relocated from one detention center to the next, until they were transferred to the Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania ("BCRC") - in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 15, 2016, Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter were abruptly relocated to Dallas. They were then transferred from Dallas, to Philadelphia, and back to Karnes, Texas, where Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter were originally detained. Thefamily's next transfer to Karnes, Texas, scheduled for November 3, 2016, was cancelled as Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter boarded the plane. No explanation was given.
Following the cancelled transfer, the State of New York granted Cruz-Gonzalez's relatives guardianship over Cruz-Gonzalez citing her father's abandonment and the potential violence she and her daughter would face back in El Salvador. The New York State Family Court further stated it would not be in the child's best interest to return to her country of origin due to the lack of parental support and violence in the region. Cruz-Gonzalez then filed an I-360 petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJ").
On February 16, 2017, the same day Cruz-Gonzalez petitioned for I-360 SIJ status, the Government announced it would be removing Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter from the United States and deporting them back to El Salvador. This Court entered an Order enjoining the Government from removing the family until consideration of the I-360 Petition was complete. On February 28, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") granted Cruz-Gonzalez SIJ status.
Cruz-Gonzalez seeks to enjoin her and her daughter's expedited removal from the United States. (ECF Docket No. 46-1, at 22.) Cruz-Gonzalez argues her status as a Special Immigrant Juvenile precludes her from expedited removal. (Id.) Cruz-Gonzalez also argues the Government's expedited removal order is unconstitutional and her continued detention violates the Flores Decree. (Id.) Finally, Cruz-Gonzalez requests this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus or injunction preventing the Government from executing the removal; or in the alternative, order the Government to place Cruz-Gonzalez and her daughter in standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Id.) This Court will deny Plaintiff's petition for the reasons stated below.
In 2016, the Third Circuit decided a fairly similar immigration case to the one before this Court today. Castro, et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-812, 2017 WL 1366739 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2017). In Castro, petitioners illegally entered the United States from several Central American countries and were detained by Customs and Border Protection agents near the border from where they crossed. Id. at 427. After requesting asylum, DHS interviewed the petitioners and deemed there was "no credible fear" of persecution in their home countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 163 F. Supp. 3d 157, 158 (E.D. Pa. 2016), aff'd 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B) (). Following the denial, DHS ordered petitioners removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Castro, 163 F. Supp. 3d at 158.
As in our case, petitioners in Castro sought habeas relief in this District, challenging the final expedited removal orders and requesting this Court vacate the removal orders and restart the removal process. Id. The petitioners asked this Court to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the removal process although the INA severely limits judicial review on final expedited removal orders. Id. at 159. This Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the final removal orders and found this limitation permissible under the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution.Castro, 163 F. Supp. 3d at 165-74; see also U.S. Const. art. § 9, cl. 2 ().
The Third Circuit upheld this Court's decision and denied petitioners' appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, concluding the INA "makes abundantly clear that if jurisdiction exists to review any claim related to an expedited removal order, it exists only under [§ 1252(e)]" and refused to apply it to the Castro petitioners. Castro, 835 F.3d at 430; see also Osorio-Martinez, et al. v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III et al., 5:17-cv-01747, ECF Docket No. 31, at 3 (May 23, 2017 Order). Further, the Third Circuit also concluded the limitation (no judicial review on final expedited removal orders) did not violate the Suspension Clause because aliens stopped at the border do not have Suspension Clause rights. Id. at 445-49 ( ). Therefore, the Third Circuit upheld this Court's holding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide petitioners' claims.
Special Immigrant Juvenile ("SIJ") status provides statutory authority for neglected or abandoned alien juveniles to reside in the country under long-term foster care. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J), 1255(a); see also U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, History of SIJ Status, https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/special-immigrant-juveniles/history-sij-status; see also Osorio-Martinez, et al., 5:17-cv-01747, ECF Docket No. 31, at 3. SIJ status allows the juvenile to then apply for lawful permanent residency and remain in the United States pending the result of that request. Garcia v. Holder, 659 F.3d 1261, 1271 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added).
Judge Diamond in Osorio-Martinez stated, Judge Diamond continued, "[o]nce granted SIJ status, however, the juvenile may file with the USCIS a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status." Osorio-Martinez, et al., 5:17-cv-01747, ECF Docket No. 31, at 3. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), an alien inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States is eligible for adjustment status if:
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment; (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
8...
To continue reading
Request your trial