Ramirez Garcia v. United States Citizenship
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-CV-2233-G |
| Parties | JOSE ALBERTO RAMIREZ GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Before the court is the defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (docket entry 4). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
This is an immigration case. The plaintiff, Jose Alberto Ramirez Garcia (“Ramirez”), is “a native and citizen of Mexico[]” who “currently resides in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas with his U.S. citizen wife and three U.S. citizen children.”
Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory and Mandamus Relief (“Complaint”) (docket entry 1) ¶ 2. The defendants include United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Ur M. Jaddou, as Director of USCIS, and Wilhelm F. Bierman, as USCIS Field Office Director (collectively, “the defendants” or “the government”). See id. ¶¶ 3-5.
On or about September 16, 2019, Ramirez filed a Form I-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status as well as a Form I-765 application for employment authorization, with USCIS.[1] See id. ¶¶ 16, 20 (citations omitted). Also on or about September 16, 2019, Ramirez's United States citizen wife, Magally Lopez (“Lopez”), filed a Form I-130 petition to classify Ramirez as an “immediate relative” of a United States citizen spouse “under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A).” Id. ¶¶ 16-17 (citations omitted); see also id., Index of Exhibits to Plaintiff's Original Complaint (“Exhibits”), at 43-45 ().[2] On August 31, 2020, the “[d]efendants issued [an] approval notice of Mr. Ramirez's I-765 application[.]” Id. ¶ 20 (citation omitted). Ramirez and Lopez then “attended [an] interview on October 20, 2020,” that the “[d]efendants scheduled . . . to consider and . . . adjudicate the merits of the I-130 petition and I-485 application.” Id. ¶¶ 21-22 (citation omitted). During this interview, an immigration officer “inquired . . . into the details of Mr. Ramirez's claimed entry to the United States[,]” and Ramirez “recounted that he clearly remembered being nervous when he entered the United States on foot with his friends, and that when he took an hours-long bus ride from Laredo to Dallas, he remembered being forced to sit on the only unoccupied seat on the bus, which happened to be right next to a smelly bathroom.” Id. ¶ 22. Following this interview, the “[d]efendants request[ed] that [Ramirez] appear” for a second interview on October 30, 2020. Id. ¶ 24 (citation omitted); see also id., Exhibits, at 53 (notice of second interview, with “Reason for Appointment” being given as “Complete I485 PROCESSING”). Ramirez attended this second interview “[o]n October 30, 2020, . . . [and] answered questions regarding his manner of entry under penalty of perjury.” Id. ¶ 25 (citation omitted). Then, “[o]n December 8, 2020, Mr. Ramirez received the decision from Defendants denying his I-485 application because he had not satisfied his burden of proving that his last entry into the United States was procedurally regular[.]” Id. ¶ 26 (citation omitted). In its decision, USCIS stated that Ramirez's “affidavit and testimony at the time of interview detail two vastly different admission scenarios[,]” and that, “therefore, [Ramirez] ha[d] not presented a credible record of [his] claimed admission into the United States.” Id., Exhibits, Decision of USCIS Regarding Ramirez's I-485 Application (“Denial of Ramirez's I-485 Application”) at 57.
On January 2, 2021, Ramirez filed a Form I-290B notice of appeal or motion with USCIS. See id. ¶ 27 (citation omitted). The “[d]efendants[] dismissed Mr. Ramirez's I-290B and affirmed the denial of his I-485 application[]” on April 6, 2021. Id. ¶ 28 (citation omitted). With respect to USCIS's consideration of Ramirez's Form I-290B, the government avers that USCIS “believed that [Ramirez] had provided two separate and contradictory explanations for his admission to the United States in his sworn statement, which was taken during his second USCIS interview and which Ramirez Garcia signed as true and correct, as the sworn statement indicated both that he crossed the border on foot and that he crossed the border on a bus.” Motion to Dismiss at 5 (citations omitted). In addition, “even assuming Ramirez Garcia's explanation was true,” USCIS “also found” that certain elements of Ramirez's purported admission to the United States were “unlikely[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Based on these conclusions, “USCIS determined that Ramirez Garcia had not met his burden to demonstrate that his entry into the United States was procedurally regular, nor had he provided any secondary evidence to support his claim[,]” and, accordingly, USCIS “affirmed” its “original decision to deny his application to adjust status[.]” Id. (citation omitted); see also Complaint ¶ 28 (describing “Defendants' dismiss[al] [of] Mr. Ramirez's I-290B”).
Then, on May 10, 2021, Ramirez filed a second Form I-290B, in support of which Ramirez included the results of a polygraph examination that he undertook following the denial of his first Form I-290B. Complaint ¶ 29 (citation omitted). On July 14, 2021, the “[d]efendants . . . issu[ed] . . . a denial notice” regarding this second Form I-290B. Id. ¶ 30 (citation omitted). In this second denial notice, USCIS provided several reasons in support of its denial of Ramirez's second Form I-290B. Id. ¶ 31; see also Motion to Dismiss at 6-7 (describing USCIS's denial of Ramirez's second Form I-290B). “First,” USCIS reasoned, Ramirez's “motion was untimely, as it was filed more than 150 days after his application for adjustment of status was denied.” Motion to Dismiss at 6 (citation omitted); see Complaint ¶¶ 31-33 (citations omitted) (describing USCIS's determination that Ramirez's motion was untimely and averring that this determination was in “blatant disregard of its own agency policy[]”). “Second,” the government avers “USCIS would not re-entertain the same grounds argued by Ramirez Garcia in his prior motion as part of a new motion to reconsider, particularly as Ramirez Garcia's principal evidence that his entry into the United States was procedurally regular was simply his own statement that his entry into the United States was procedurally regular.” Motion to Dismiss at 6 (citation omitted). Finally, USCIS concluded that, “although Ramirez Garcia did present new evidence as required for a motion to reopen, the evidence ‘did not constitute new and material facts, affidavits, or other documentary evidence,' as much of the evidence had already been provided to USCIS or constituted testimony from Ramirez Garcia, his wife, and his counsel that had ‘low probative value' or was already included in Ramirez Garcia's previous sworn statement.” Id. at 6-7 (citation omitted); see Complaint ¶¶ 34-36 () (citations omitted).
Removal proceedings were initiated against Ramirez on November 16, 2021, when USCIS served Ramirez with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). See Motion to Dismiss at 8 n.3 (“USCIS served Ramirez Garcia on November 16, 2021, with a Notice to Appear . . . initiating removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229.”) (citation omitted); Appendix in Support of Motion to Dismiss (docket entry 5) at 4 (declaration of Section Chief for USCIS in Dallas, Texas, that “[o]n November 16, 2021, USCIS issued an NTA to . . . Ramirez”); Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“Response to Motion to Dismiss”) (docket entry 7) at 2, (citations omitted) (averring that “Defendants have effectively issued a Notice To Appear . . . against Mr. Ramirez,” and acknowledging “Defendants' mailing a Notice To Appear . . . to the Executive Office For Immigration Review” and “the issuance of an NTA issued against Mr. Ramirez”); see Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (“Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss”) (docket entry 9) at 1 (citations omitted) ( that “removal proceedings” against Ramirez “have already begun”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) ().[3]
Ramirez initiated this action on September 20, 2021, by filing a complaint against the defendants in the Dallas Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See generally Complaint. In Ramirez's complaint, he “seeks judicial review of Defendants' final decision to deny his Form I-485 . . . because the basis of the denial . . . amounts to a new evidentiary rule . . . without good cause in violation of the Administrative and Procedure Act . . . 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); constitutes an arbitrary and capricious agency action that is also an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with the law, in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and denies Mr. Ramirez due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and does not conform with the applicable law, a duty owed to Mr. Ramirez that Defendants must perform, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1361.” Id. ¶ 1; see also id. ¶¶ 45-61 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial