De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 17-cv-9604 (PKC)

Citation367 F.Supp.3d 174
Decision Date15 February 2019
Docket Number17-cv-9604 (PKC)
Parties Soraya Frances DE DANDRADE, Maria Vasquez, Daysi Moya, Marisol Ojeda De Nunez, Obdulia Ruiz, Juana Jimenez, Eduvigis A. Del Rosario, Chou Hang, Miguelina De La Cruz, Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, and Project Citizenship, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and L. Francis Cissna, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

367 F.Supp.3d 174

Soraya Frances DE DANDRADE, Maria Vasquez, Daysi Moya, Marisol Ojeda De Nunez, Obdulia Ruiz, Juana Jimenez, Eduvigis A. Del Rosario, Chou Hang, Miguelina De La Cruz, Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, and Project Citizenship, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and L. Francis Cissna, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants.

17-cv-9604 (PKC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed February 15, 2019


367 F.Supp.3d 179

Christine Clarke, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Jojo Annobil, Immigrant Justice Corps, Shannon Suzanne McKinnon, Cooley LLP, Chavi Keeney Nana, Christopher Ronald Noyes, Jeffrey David Coleman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Christopher D. Lamb, Theresa Dawn Lawson, Bronx Legal Services, Bronx, NY, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Kevin M. Yurkerwich, Paloma Naderi, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Jason Baumetz, Alaska Immigration Justice Project, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiffs.

Kirti Vaidya Reddy, Anthony Jan-Huan Sun, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

CASTEL, United States District Judge

Lawful permanent residents ("LPRs") are required to pass an English language exam and a civics exam before becoming citizens, unless the exam requirements are waived. Nine LPRs and two non-profit organizations filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to defendants' process for granting exam waivers based on mental or physical conditions. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 etseq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 etseq., the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 etseq., and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. V. Defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), and directors of those agencies, now move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the plaintiffs' Complaint and declarations submitted on behalf of both parties and are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

I. The Parties

At the time the Complaint was filed, in December 2017, all nine individual plaintiffs were LPRs, i.e. non-citizens who have been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. (Compl. ¶ 1 & n.1; Doc 1.) LPRs wishing to become naturalized citizens must pass civics and English language tests, subject to certain exceptions for physical or mental disability. 8 U.S.C. § 1423(a), (b). All nine individual plaintiffs submitted at least one N-648 Medical Certification for Disability Exception waiver form to USCIS. (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 77, 94, 105, 124, 132, 145, 155, 165.) USCIS denied plaintiffs' waivers. (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 77, 96, 107, 126, 133, 147, 156, 167.) It is undisputed that as of February 2019, all but two of the individual plaintiffs, Daysi Moya and Obdulia Ruiz, had their N-648 waivers approved as part of their naturalization applications. (Letter of February 6, 2019 at 2; Doc 59, Declaration of Zoraida Gomez, Doc 71.)

Plaintiff Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice ("YMPJ") is a non-profit organization whose mission is to help the residents

367 F.Supp.3d 180

of South Bronx neighborhoods, including help with immigration services. (Compl. ¶¶ 175–76.) From August 2015 to August 2017, YMPJ helped residents of these neighborhoods file 118 naturalization applications, eleven of which included N-648 disability waiver requests. (Compl. ¶ 177.) YMPJ spends additional resources serving clients who require N-648 waivers based on their experience with the high chance of N-648 denial. For example, YMPJ sends a representative to naturalization interviews only for clients with an N-648 disability waiver request. (Compl. ¶ 180.)

Plaintiff Project Citizenship is a non-profit organization located in Massachusetts whose mission is to provide services for LPRs to become citizens. (Compl. ¶ 182.) Ten percent of the at least 14,000 individual naturalization applications Project Citizenship has helped file, or 1,400 applications, have included N-648 waiver requests. (Compl. ¶ 186.) Noticing a high rate of N-648 request denials, Project Citizenship began in August 2016 to send a representative to every naturalization interview in which the candidate filed an N-648 request. (Compl. ¶ 186.) When N-648 forms are denied, Project Citizenship works with physicians to add information to N-648 waivers, re-submits, and accompanies clients to subsequent naturalization interviews. (Compl. ¶ 187.)

Defendant DHS oversees the United States' immigration and naturalization processes. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Defendant USCIS is a government agency within DHS. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Kirstjen M. Nielsen is the Secretary of DHS, and L. Francis Cissna is the Director of USCIS. (Compl. ¶¶ 20–21.)

II. The Allegations

Plaintiffs contend that defendants violated statutory and Constitutional requirements by failing to implement a fair and effective process for considering N-648 medical disability waiver requests. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that defendants deny waivers based on inappropriate considerations, refuse to explain the bases for their denials, substitute their own judgment for that of medical professionals when reviewing disability waiver requests, improperly refuse to accept photocopied documentation, fail to review waivers prior to naturalization interviews, subject applicants to humiliation and emotional stress by requiring them to take the English and civics tests when they know applicants cannot pass, and fail to provide opportunities to challenge denials of N-648 requests. (Compl. ¶¶ 44–54, 191, 194, 203, 204, 206, 212, 217.)

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). In assessing the sufficiency of a pleading, a court must disregard legal conclusions, which are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Id. Instead, a court must examine the well-pleaded factual allegations and "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all factual allegations in the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). "Dismissal is appropriate when ‘it is clear from the face of the complaint, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice, that the plaintiff[s'] claims are barred as a matter of law.’ "

367 F.Supp.3d 181

Parkcentral Glob. Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings SE, 763 F.3d 198, 208–09 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int'l, 231 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2000) ).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., is decided under the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 318 F.3d 113, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (Sotomayor, J.), abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126–27, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014). However, "[i]n resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) a district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings." Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008). Unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, for which the movant bears the burden of proof, on Rule 12(b)(1) motions "[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005).

DISCUSSION

I. The Organizations Have Article III Standing

Defendants contest the Article III standing of YMPJ and Project Citizenship. "[A]n organization can ‘have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.’ " N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 294 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ).1 To qualify, the organization "must meet the same standing test that applies to individuals." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs must show an injury-in-fact that is traceable to the harmful conduct complained of and capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • July 29, 2019
    ...interests analysis as a "limited circumstance[ ]" for "organizations advocating for clients[.]" De Dandrade v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 367 F. Supp. 3d 174, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("In the limited circumstances in which district courts determined organizations advocating for clie......
  • Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 2, 2019
    ...of interests analysis as a "limited circumstance[]" for "organizations advocating for clients[.]" De Dandrade v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 367 F. Supp. 3d 174, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("In the limited circumstances in which district courts determined organizations advocating for cli......
  • State v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 19-cv-8876(JSR)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 19, 2019
    ...various non-profit organizations were found not to fall within the INA's zone of interests. E.g., De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 367 F. Supp. 3d 174, 188-90 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ; INS v. Legal ization Assistance Project, 510 U.S. 1301, 114 S.Ct. 422, 126 L.Ed.2d 410 (1993) (in-chamb......
  • Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 21, 2019
    ...Congress has explicitly made the full scope of APA review available in a § 1421(c) action. See De Dandrade v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 367 F. Supp. 3d 174, 186-87 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Section 1421(c) also provides that review is "de novo, and the court shall make its own findings of fact a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT