Salinas v. Blinken
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:22-CV-134 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2023 |
| Parties | CRISTINA SALINAS, Plaintiff, v. ANTONY J BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
In September 2022, Plaintiff Cristina Salinas filed a Complaint (Doc. 2) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act seeking a declaratory judgment that she is a United States citizen and a permanent injunction requiring Defendant Antony J. Blinken, U.S Secretary of State (“United States”), to issue her a passport.
In June 2023, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because Salinas does not meet the residency requirement found in Section 1503(a).[1] The Court has conducted a review of the Motion, the briefing of the parties, the record in this case, and the applicable law. The Court concludes that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because Salinas resided in the Southern District of Texas at the time she filed her Complaint.
In June 2016, Plaintiff Cristina Salinas filed an application for a U.S. passport. (Denial Ltr., Doc. 1-1, 2) In support of her claim, she submitted a birth certificate that listed her place of birth as McAllen, Texas. (Id.; see also Birth Certificate, Doc. 1-1, 4-5) In September 2017, the U.S. Department of State denied the passport application because it determined that the documentation that Salinas submitted was not sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was born in the United States. (Denial Ltr., Doc. 1-1, 2) This decision constituted the final administrative denial of a U.S. passport.
When Salinas sought the passport, she lived with her brothers, Arturo and Anthony, in a house that Arturo owned in Fort Worth, Texas. (Dep., Doc. 16-1, 24-28) After Anthony and his family moved out, in 2017 or 2018, Salinas moved to a house that she owned and continues to own in Arlington, Texas. (Id. at 28-29, 32, 37) Around 2021, she bought and moved into a house in Mansfield, Texas, and she continues to own that house as well.[2] (Id. at 30-31, 37) Currently, she rents the house in Mansfield on a month-to-month basis. (Id. at 32)
In January 2022, Salinas's brother, Juan Antonio Salinas, began leasing an apartment in Harlingen, Texas. (Juan Interrog., Doc. 16-2, 2, 7) The following month, he filed a Section 1503 lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas-Brownsville Division, seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen. See Compl., Juan Antonio Salinas v. Blinken, No. 22-CV-019 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2022), Doc. 1.
Six months later, in July, Salinas contacted the attorney representing her brother in his Section 1503 action. She then “decided to move to the city of Harlingen in August.” (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 1) She concedes that up until then in 2022, she had resided in Mansfield. (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 2)
On August 2, Salinas signed a “Lease Contract Amendment”, adding her name as a “New Resident” for the apartment that her brother rented in Harlingen. (Dep., Doc. 16-1, 57-58) Around August 13, Salinas physically moved into the apartment. (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 2; see also Dep., Doc. 16-1, 13-16) Her brother always paid the rent, but Salinas contributed to household expenses by paying “part of the utilities”, including for internet and some entertainment services. (Dep., Doc. 16-1, 19-20, ll. 4-10 and 23-24)
When Salinas first traveled to Harlingen in August, she flew with just a carry-on bag containing about one week's worth of clothes. (Id. at 60-61) She brought down additional clothing that month and in September, but she did not move her furniture, documents, accessories, pictures, or mementos. (Id. at 61-65) Rather, in September 2022, she rented a storage unit in Arlington, and hired movers to place her household goods in that unit. (Id.)
On August 30, Salinas used online services to obtain a Texas driver's license listing her address in Harlingen. (Pl. Ex. 3, Doc. 1-1, 7) She had already moved one of her cars to Harlingen in May 2022, leaving it in the care of her brother, but she kept her other vehicle in Mansfield in the care of her sister-in-law. (Dep., Doc. 16-11, 65) Salinas kept both vehicles registered in Tarrant County, Texas throughout August and September. (Id. at 65-66)
As for her profession, Salinas possesses a real estate agent license from the State of Texas. (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 2-3; Dep., Doc. 16-1, 12) Through 2022, Keller Williams Lonestar DFW, operating out of Arlington, was her sponsoring broker. (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 4) When living in North Texas, Salinas at times worked out of Keller Williams's physical office in Arlington, and she represented clients in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. (Dep., Doc. 16-1, 47-49)
Salinas also owns several real estate businesses: Gusanoc Investments LLC, which owns about eight investment properties in Tarrant and Johnson Counties, Texas; Crisa Real Estate LLC, which assists prospective home renters and buyers; Tiznas Investments LLC, another rental investment company; and Casa Modelo LLC, a company for helping home sellers furnish and decorate their homes for sale. (Dep., Doc. 16-1, 37-46) None of these businesses maintain a physical office. Rather, Salinas conducts business through these companies via her computer. (Id. at 47) At the start of 2022, Salinas registered her four companies with the Texas Secretary of State using an address in Arlington. In May, she amended Tiznas's registration to reflect an address in Mansfield. (Certificate of Formation, Doc. 16-6)
Once she moved to Harlingen, Salinas lived in the apartment with her brother. But before filing her lawsuit, she made two trips to Mansfield, the first from August 29 to September 2, and the second from September 17 to 19. (Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 5; Dep., Doc. 16-1, 68-71) On both occasions, she stayed with her sister-in-law. (Id.) During those trips, she made repairs to one of her properties in the area and attended follow-up appointments with a medical provider she had previously seen. (Id.)
On September 28, Salinas filed this lawsuit.
After filing her Complaint, Salinas continued to live with her brother in Harlingen. (See Cristina Interrog., Doc. 16-11, 5)
In October 2022, she began representing residential buyers in Cameron County, Texas, although she also continued representing clients in the Dallas-Fort Worth area through January 2023. (See Greater McAllen Assoc. of Realtors Invoice, Doc. 16-7 (); Dep., Doc. 16-1, 47-49)
With respect to her companies, in November 2022, Salinas changed the registration address for Gusanoc, Crisa, and Casa Modelo to Mansfield. (Statements of Change, Docs. 16-3, 16-4, 16-5) And in January 2023, she changed Gusanoc's, Crisa's, and Tiznas's registrations to Harlingen. (Statements of Change, Docs. 16-8, 16-9, 16-10)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a trial court must dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the Court is without the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). The party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing facts supporting federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745, 748 (5th Cir. 2009); Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998).
In determining whether jurisdiction exists, a court may consider: “(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the Court's resolution of disputed facts.” Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). “[A]ll questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness [are] determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint”. Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Burr v. Transohio Sav., No. 9520144, 1995 WL 798590, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 27, 1995) () (citing Carney v. Resolution Trust Corp., 19 F.3d 950, 954 (5th Cir. 1994)).
When the factual basis for jurisdiction is in question, the court “may receive interrogatories, deposition, or ‘any combination of the recognized methods of discovery' to help it resolve the jurisdictional issue.” Walk Haydel & Assoc., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235, 241 (5th Cir. 2008). If the parties dispute facts determinative of jurisdiction, “judges have the power to resolve these disputes in assuring themselves of their court's jurisdiction.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 271 (5th Cir. 2010).
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), “a person who is within the United States [who] claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and [who] is denied such right or privilege” on the grounds that she is not a national of the United States, may file a declaratory judgment action asking the court to adjudicate her citizenship. This provision mandates that the action “shall be filed in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or claims a residence.” Id. (emphasis added). The requirement is jurisdictional. Flores...
To continue reading
Request your trial