Gonzalez v. Reno
| Citation | 212 F.3d 1338 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,No. 00-11424,00-11424 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) ELIAN GONZALEZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH LAZARO GONZALEZ, AS NEXT FRIEND, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AS TEMPORARY LEGAL CUSTODIAN,, v. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; ROBERT WALLIS, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, JUAN MIGUEL GONZALEZ, INTERVENOR |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Before Edmondson, Dubina and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
This case, at first sight, seems to be about little more than a child and his father. But, for this Court, the case is mainly about the separation of powers under our constitutional system of government: a statute enacted by Congress, the permissible scope of executive discretion under that statute, and the limits on judicial review of the exercise of that executive discretion.
Elian Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), a six-year-old Cuban child, arrived in the United States alone. His father in Cuba demanded that Plaintiff be returned to Cuba. Plaintiff, however, asked to stay in the United States; and asylum applications were submitted on his behalf. The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") -- after, among other things, consulting with Plaintiff's father and considering Plaintiff's age -- decided that Plaintiff's asylum applications were legally void and refused to consider their merit.
Plaintiff then filed this suit in federal district court, seeking on several grounds to compel the INS to consider and to determine the merit of his asylum applications. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's suit. Gonzalez ex rel. Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp.2d 1167, 1194 (S.D. Fla. 2000). Plaintiff appeals, 1 and we affirm.
In December 1993, Plaintiff was born in Cuba to Juan Miguel Gonzalez and Elizabeth Gonzalez. When Plaintiff was about three years old, Juan Miguel and Elizabeth separated. Elizabeth retained custody of Plaintiff after the separation. Juan Miguel, however, continued to have regular and significant contact with his son. Plaintiff, in fact, attended school in the district where his father lived and often stayed at Juan Miguel's home.
In November 1999, Elizabeth decided to leave Cuba and to take her son to the United States. In the pre-dawn hours of 22 November, Plaintiff and Elizabeth, along with twelve other Cuban nationals, left Cuba aboard a small boat. The next day, the boat capsized in strong winds and rough seas off the coast of Florida. Eleven of the passengers, including Elizabeth, died. Plaintiff, clinging to an inner tube, endured and survived.
Two days later, Plaintiff was rescued at sea by Florida fishermen and was taken to a hospital in Miami for medical treatment. While Plaintiff was receiving medical treatment, the INS was contacted by Plaintiff's great-uncle: Miami resident Lazaro Gonzalez. INS officials decided, upon Plaintiff's release from the hospital, not to remove Plaintiff immediately to Cuba. Instead, the INS deferred Plaintiff's immigration inspection and paroled Plaintiff into Lazaro's custody and care.
Soon thereafter, Lazaro filed an application for asylum on Plaintiff's behalf with the INS. This application was followed shortly by a second application signed by Plaintiff himself. A third asylum application was filed by Lazaro on Plaintiff's behalf in January 2000, after a state court awarded temporary custody of Plaintiff to Lazaro. 2 The applications were prepared by a Miami lawyer.
The three applications were substantially identical in content. The applications stated that Plaintiff "is afraid to return to Cuba." The applications claimed that Plaintiff had a well-founded fear of persecution because many members of Plaintiff's family had been persecuted by the Castro government in Cuba. In particular according to the applications, Plaintiff's stepfather had been imprisoned for several months because of opposition to the Cuban government. Two of Plaintiff's great-uncles also had been imprisoned for their political acts. Plaintiff's mother had also been harassed and intimidated by communist authorities in Cuba. The applications also alleged that, if Plaintiff were returned to Cuba, he would be used as a propaganda tool for the Castro government and would be subjected to involuntary indoctrination in the tenets of communism.
Plaintiff's father, however, apparently did not agree that Plaintiff should remain in the United States. Soon after Plaintiff was rescued at sea, Juan Miguel sent to Cuban officials a letter, asking for Plaintiff's return to Cuba. The Cuban government forwarded this letter to the INS.
Because of the conflicting requests about whether Plaintiff should remain in the United States, INS officials interviewed both Juan Miguel and Lazaro. An INS official, on 13 December, met with Juan Miguel at his home in Cuba. At that meeting, Juan Miguel made this comment:
[Plaintiff], at the age of six, cannot make a decision on his own . . . . I'm very grateful that he received immediate medical assistance, but he should be returned to me and my family . . . . As for him to get asylum, I am not allowing him to stay or claim any type of petition; he should be returned immediately to me.
Juan Miguel denied that Lazaro was authorized to seek asylum for Plaintiff; Juan Miguel also refused to consent to any lawyer representing Plaintiff. Juan Miguel assured the INS official that his desire for Plaintiff's return to Cuba was genuine and was not coerced by the Cuban government.
One week later, INS officials in Miami met with Lazaro, Marisleysis Gonzalez (Plaintiff's cousin), and several lawyers representing Plaintiff. At that meeting, the parties discussed Juan Miguel's request. Lazaro contended that Juan Miguel's request for Plaintiff's return to Cuba was coerced by the Cuban government. 3 INS officials also inquired about the legal basis for Plaintiff's asylum applications; Lazaro replied this way: Plaintiff's lawyers told the INS again of the persecution of Plaintiff's relatives in Cuba because of their political opposition to the Castro government.
On 31 December, an INS official again met with Juan Miguel in Cuba to investigate further Lazaro's claim that Juan Miguel's request had been coerced. 4 At that meeting, Juan Miguel repeated that he desired Plaintiff's return to Cuba. Juan Miguel also reasserted that he was under no undue influence from any individual or government. The INS official -- taking Juan Miguel's demeanor into account -- determined that Juan Miguel, in fact, genuinely desired his son's return to Cuba.
The INS Commissioner, on 5 January 2000, rejected Plaintiff's asylum applications as legally void. The Commissioner -- concluding that six-year-old children lack the capacity to file personally for asylum against the wishes of their parents -- determined that Plaintiff could not file his own asylum applications. Instead, according to the Commissioner, Plaintiff needed an adult representative to file for asylum on his behalf. The Commissioner -- citing the custom that parents generally speak for their children and finding that no circumstance in this case warranted a departure from that custom -- concluded that the asylum applications submitted by Plaintiff and Lazaro were legally void and required no further consideration. Plaintiff asked the Attorney General to overrule the Commissioner's decision; the Attorney General declined to do so.
Plaintiff then, by and through Lazaro as his next friend, filed a complaint in federal district court seeking to compel the INS to consider the merits of his asylum applications. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the refusal to consider his applications violated 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court rejected both claims and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff appeals. 5
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred (1) by dismissing Plaintiff's claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, (2) by dismissing Plaintiff's due process claim, and (3) by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Plaintiff's interests. 6 We have reviewed carefully the record and the briefs filed by all parties. We conclude that Plaintiff's due process claim lacks merit and does not warrant extended discussion. See Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 968 (11th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (), aff'd on other grounds, 105 S. Ct. 2992 (1985). Plaintiff's guardian ad litem claim, because Plaintiff was ably represented in district court by his next friend, also lacks merit and similarly does not warrant extended discussion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (); see also Roberts v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir. 1958) (). We, accordingly, affirm the district court's dismissal of the constitutional claim and the district court's refusal to appoint a guardian ad litem. 7 We now turn, however, to a more difficult question: the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's statutory claim.
Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in rejecting his statutory claim ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Saul
...232, 94 S. Ct. 1055, 39 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) ); seealsoRomano-Murphy v. C.I.R., 816 F.3d 707, 720 (11th Cir. 2016); Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Agencies must respect their own procedural rules and regulations."). This is the case even where ... "the internal pro......
-
Goss Graphic Systems v. Man Roland Druckmaschinen
...a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations"); Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir.) (holding INS has authority to dictate asylum application procedure when statute is silent on the issue where INS has delega......
-
Richardson v. Saul
...232, 94 S. Ct. 1055, 39 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) ); seealsoRomano-Murphy v. C.I.R., 816 F.3d 707, 720 (11th Cir. 2016); Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Agencies must respect their own procedural rules and regulations."). This is the case even where ... "the internal pro......
-
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
...alone. On this question, “more important than what Congress said” in § 2133 “is what Congress left unsaid.” See Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1348 (11th Cir.2000). Since the AWA does not mandate a renewal procedure at all, much less prescribe the “particulars of that procedure,” id., Con......
-
The rising bar for persecution in asylum cases involving sexual and reproductive harm.
...isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation... [m]ere harassment does not amount to persecution." (quoting Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1335 (11th Cir. 2000)). But see Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (limiting persecution to "the infliction of threat of dea......
-
Bankruptcy - Robert B. Chapman
...Ala., 2002 WL 1264010 (Ala. June 7, 2002). See also, e.g., Gonzalez ex rel. Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (S.D. Fla. 2000), affd, 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 215 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000), cert denied, 530 U.S. 1270 (2000). The court in Sterilite......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - William M. Droze and Suzanne F. Sturdivant
...L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia. Agnes Scott College (B.A. 1991); Georgia State University College of Law (J.D., 2000). 1. See Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000), affd en banc, 215 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000). 2. See Harris v. Florida Elections Comm'n, 235 F.3d 578 (11th Cir. 2000); T......
-
Immigration law.
...cf. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999) (stating judicial deference heightened in foreign policy matters); Gonzales v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 n.12 (11th Cir. 2000) (suggesting particular deference in immigration and international (29.) See Sun Wen Chen v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 49......