Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 19-3273 (RC) |
| Parties | JACK STONE Plaintiff, v. U.S. EMBASSY TOKYO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Re Document Nos.: 106, 120, 155
Plaintiff Jack Stone, proceeding pro se, sued the United States Department of State and the United States Embassy in Tokyo (together, "Defendants") seeking, inter alia, a court order that the State Department issue a U.S. passport to Stone's minor child, so that Stone and his child can return to the United States from Japan. Before the Court today are Stone's and Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of the child's passport application. For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Stone's motions and grants Defendants' motion.
The Court presumes familiarity with its prior opinions in this case. See Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo (Stone I), No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 4260711 (D.D.C. July 24, 2020) (); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo (Stone II), No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 5653699 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2020) (); Stone v. U.S. Embassy Tokyo (Stone III), No. 19-3273, 2020 WL 5775196 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2020) ().
In February 2019, Plaintiff Stone petitioned the District Court for the District of Hawaii for an emergency order compelling the State Department to issue a new U.S. passport to Stone's minor child, a U.S. citizen. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Stone alleged that his spouse, Miyuki Suzuki, a Japanese national, had abducted their child to Japan and destroyed the child's passport without Stone's consent. See id. In October 2019, the District of Hawaii denied Stone's emergency motion and transferred venue to this Court, see ECF No. 64, to adjudicate the merits of Stone's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), ECF No. 39. Stone has pleaded a variety of grievances before the Court, but his primary justiciable contention appears to be that Defendants' denial of the passport application for lack of two-parent consent, upon finding that the exceptions for "exigent" or "special family circumstances" did not apply, was arbitrary and capricious agency action.
The two-parent consent rule generally bars issuance of a passport to a minor under sixteen without the consent of both of the minor's parents or legal guardians. See 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(a)(2). There is an exception to the two-parent consent rule for "exigent" or "special family circumstances." Id. § 51.28(a)(5). "Exigent circumstances" include "time-sensitive circumstances in which the inability of the minor to obtain a passport would jeopardize the health and safety or welfare of the minor." Id. § 51.28(a)(5)(i). "Special family circumstances" are "circumstances in which the minor's family situation makes it exceptionally difficult for one or both of the parents to execute the passport application; and/or compelling humanitarian circumstances where the minor's lack of a passport would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the minor." Id. § 51.28(a)(5)(ii). The State Department follows internal guidelines, found in Chapter 8 of its Foreign Affairs Manual ("FAM"), in applying the two-parent consent rule and evaluating claims for exceptions.
Stone has filed many motions, papers, and requests, seeking relief for a litany of alleged wrongful conduct by Defendants. At issue here are Stone's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Reissued Passport and Damages ("Pl.'s Partial MSJ"), ECF No. 106, Stone's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Compel Issuance of Passport and for Damages ("Pl.'s MSJ"), ECF No. 155, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ( ), ECF No. 120. The Court construes Stone's filings together as a single motion, and Defendants' as a cross-motion, for summary judgment on the issue of the passport application.
Stone alleges that Suzuki abducted their child from their domicile in the United States to Japan in November 2018, without his knowledge or consent, and destroyed the child's U.S. passport. For two months, the child lived with Suzuki and, at times, her parents, who Stone claims belong to a dangerous religious cult and neglected the child. Pl.'s MSJ at 39. Stone, already in Japan to renew his spousal visa, secured employment and an apartment and took physical custody of the child "under violent circumstances" in January 2019. Pl.'s MSJ at 50. Suzuki allegedly shipped all of the child's belongings to Stone's new residence, A.R. 79, and then purportedly emailed Stone telling him that he should leave Japan with the child, see Pl.'s MSJ at 51 (citing A.R. 102), 57-58. Suzuki has legally abandoned the child, in Stone's view, making him the sole parent. Pl.'s MSJ at 39, 51. On January 4 and January 25, Stone contacted the Embassy and filled out some paperwork, which he construes as two separate and unsuccessful passport applications. Pl.'s MSJ at 56-57 (citing A.R. 78-79). He then filed a lawsuit, asking the District Court of Hawaii to compel issuance of the passport. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Stone and the child appeared for their in-person appointment at the Embassy on February8,1 and Stone presented his "Statement of Special Family Circumstances" using the State Department's standard form DS-5525. In the DS-5525 form, Stone asserted that he had attempted to contact Suzuki by phone and email over 200 times since the alleged abduction but that she was nonresponsive. A.R. 79. The form required Stone to explain in detail, under penalty of perjury, his reasons for seeking the passport without Suzuki's consent. Id. Stone wrote:
Defendants dispute Stone's story, beginning with whether the child was abducted at all. See Defs.' MSJ at 8 n.9. When Stone contacted the Embassy throughout January 2019 about the passport issue, staff advised him of the two-parent consent rule and the DS-5525 process, but, consistent with State Department policy, they declined to pre-adjudicate his application. Defs.' MSJ at 9-10; A.R. 156-57, 176-77, 182-84. Also in January, Suzuki contacted the Embassy twice out of concern that Stone would procure a passport and take their child from Japan without her consent. Defs.' MSJ at 9-10 (citing A.R. 17-18, 122, 156, 158). Stone was repeatedly told that no passport application could be made until the in-person appointment at the Embassy inFebruary. Id. at 10; A.R. 182-83, 266. Once duly made, the Embassy reviewed the application, the DS-5525, the email from Suzuki to Stone, and records of communications with both Stone and Suzuki, and concluded that Stone had not provided two-parent consent nor met the burden to invoke the exigent or special family circumstances exception. Defs.' MSJ at 11-12. Pursuant to its policy, of which Stone was also advised, see A.R. 226, the Embassy forwarded Stone's file to the State Department in Washington, D.C. and requested concurrence. Defs.' MSJ at 12. The State Department agreed "[b]ased on the extreme lack of credibility of the DS-5525," Suzuki's "express concerns to issuance," and its finding that Suzuki had not abandoned the child. Id. at 12-13 (quoting A.R. 353). The Embassy notified Stone on February 15 and gave him ninety days to provide Suzuki's consent, or else the application would be denied. Id. at 13; A.R. 116. Stone continued to contact the Embassy, the State Department, and the office of the Senator from Hawaii, but did not produce a notarized statement of Suzuki's consent. Defs.' MSJ at 13-14. The State Department denied the application without prejudice on June 4. Id. at 15-16 (citing A.R. 117). Stone has proceeded with litigation but has not reapplied. Id. at 15 n.12.
None of the myriad statutes, treaties, or common law rights that Stone alleges have been violated are at issue here besides the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). For instance, the Court has already denied Stone's motions to add claims under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("Hague Convention"), Oct. 25, 1980, 1343 U.N.T.S. 22514, and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001-11. See Stone I, 2020 WL 4260711, at *4. Stone's allegations that the Court is improperly biasedagainst him3 have been addressed and dismissed. See Stone II, 2020 WL 5653699. Various other issues are the subject of separate motions before the Court. See, e.g., Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions and Contempt, ECF No. 179.
In short, the only right with which the Court is concerned here is a private party's right to seek judicial review of an adverse final agency action under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. The agency action at issue is Defendants' June 2019 denial of Stone's February 2019 passport application on behalf of his first-born child. The Court notes at the outset that the only relief it would grant to Stone on summary judgment is vacatur of the denial as arbitrary and capricious and an order that Defendants reconsider the application in light of the Court's findings. See Stone I, 2020 WL 4260711, at *8; Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67, 80 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial