Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01900/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01900-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 08:1255 Immigration: Failure USCIS To Adjudicate Permanent Residency Petition

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FILED 

AUG 192D18 

CLERK, 

SOUTHERN 

BY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARGELIA FERIA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JEH JOHNSON, Secret~ of 

Homeland Security, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 15cv1900 WQH 

(KSC) 

ORDER 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the "Motion to Dismiss" or, in the Alternative, for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No.7) filed by the Defendants. 

I. Background 

On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff Argelia Feria filed the Complaint (ECF No.1) 

against Defendant Jeh Johnson, Secretary ofHomeland Security, andLorettaE. Lynch, 

Attorney General of the United States, and Alanna Y. Ow, District Director of the 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Service pursuant to the Immigration and 

Nationality Act ("INA"), 8U.S.C. § 1101 etseq., and the Administrative Procedure Act 

("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Id. On March 18,2016, Defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) or in the alternative, for 

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). (ECF No.7). 

On April 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No.8). On April 18, 2016, 

- 1 - 15cv1900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
1 II Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No.9). 

2 II II. Allegations of the Complaint 

3 II Plaintiff filed this action seeking "declaratory and injunctive relief to compel 

411 Defendants and their subordinates to: (a) find ... that Plaintiffwas lawfully 'inspected 

511 and admitted' into the United States under INA § 245; 8 U.S.C. 1255; (b) reopen and 

611 re-adjudicatetheImmigrantPetition (FormI-485 application) that was filed by Plaintiff 

711 as an immediate relative spouse of a U.S. citizen; and (c) enjoin the Defendants to 

8 II continue the employment authorization for Mrs. Feria." (ECF No.1 at 1-2). Plaintiff 

911 alleges that "[t]his Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c) (1) & (3), art L § 

1011 9, cl. 2 ofthe United States Constitution ('Suspension Clause'), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

11 II as Mrs. Feria was deprived of her right to have her immigration application adjusted 

12 II under the relevant statutes, laws and case interpretations ofthe United States." ld. ~1. 

13 II Plaintiff alleges that: 

14 
 rshe1 entered into the United States in 2002 in a car through the San 

Ysidro California Port-of-En~. She was in the vehicle witli two other 

15 individuals and was in~pected and admitted into the United States by an 

immigration officer. TIle officer stopped the car, asked questions ofthe 

16 driver and then Qroceeded to allow ilie vehicle and the occupants to drive 

into tre United -States. The officer did not speak to nor aSK Plaintiff any 17 questIOns. 

18 ld.~17. 

19 Plaintiff then submitted an Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust 

20 II Status to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") "based on 

21 II being an immediate relative of a United States citizen, her eligibility to receive an 

22 II immigrant visa, the immediate availability of the immigrant visa, and her inspection 

23 II and admission into the United States." ld. ~ 18. Plaintiff was scheduled for an 

24 II immigrant interview at USCIS where "Plaintiff provided testimony regarding her 

25 II inspection and admission into the United States." ld. ~ 20. "Plaintiff received a 

2611 decision of denial from USCIS over two weeks after the interview." ld. ~ 21. The 

27 II decision of denial letter stated: 

28 II During your interview you stated on a record of sworn statement the 

followmg: You last entered the United States from the San Ysidro Port of 

- 2 - 15cv1900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 Entry at around 9 in the morning ofeither the 28th or the 29th ofJune 2002 

9Y car. You stated that you were 19 or 20 years old when you entered the 

2 
 United States. You stated that you were sitting in the back of a car 

accompanied by a male driver and the person sittmg next to you, both of 

3 
 whom you claim to not know. You claimed that the Immigration Officer 

only aSKed the driver for documentation and that you did not talk to the 

4 
 Officer. You claimed that you did not have documents allowing you to 

enter into the United States. You also claimed that you were going to go back to your house if you were refused entry into Hie United States. You 

stated tliat your dad kiiew ofyour plans to come to the United States, that 

6 he said it was dangerous, but that It was your choice and that you wanted 

to be with your husband. 

7 

The documents in SUPROrt of your claimed entry into the United States 

8 
 have been reviewed ana considered. The Agency deems your claim to be 

insufficient and lacks convincing evidence because of the following 9 reason( s): Your claim that you entered the United States at the age of 19 

or 20 years old while sitting in the back of a car with people you did not 

know and your claim that YO!l_presented yourselffor inS~Ction and were 

allowed to roceed into die United States without clari ing your status 

11 lack credibSity. In addition, sy'stem checks did not revea any record that 

you were ever issued any nonimmigrant visa to legally enter the United 

12 States. 

13 Because you have no proof of lawful entry and your claim that you were 

admitted to the United States was insutficient and lacked convincing 14 corroborating evidence, you have failed to establish that you were 

insRected and admitted or paroled into the United States. Therefore, you 

are ineligible to adjust your status under Section 245 ofthe Act. 

16 II ld. at 11. 

1711 Plaintiff alleges that "though [Defendants] received Plaintiffs attorney's letter 

18 II [with] the relevant case law supporting Plaintiffs lawfully inspected and admitted 

1911 entry, they were choosing to ignore it. USCIS did NOT make a determination that 

II Plaintiff was not a credible witness." ld. , 21. 

21 II Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants violated Plaintiffs statutory right to apply for 

2211 relief which Congress has provided under the INA, depriving Plaintiff of the 

23 II opportunity to obtain adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident and live 

24 II lawfully in the United States under INA §245." ld. ,25. Plaintifffurther alleges that 

II "Defendants have unlawfully and erroneously interpreted the definition of the term 

2611 'inspected and admitted' in INA §245" and "[b]ased on this erroneous interpretation, 

2711 Defendants have erroneously denied Plaintiffs adjustment of status application in 

28 II violation of clear Congressional intent." ld. , 27. 

- 3 - 15cvl900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

, 

1 1\ Plaintiff requests that the Court order "Defendants to approve the 1-485 

2 1\ application originally filed by Plaintiff' and "authorize her to legally work in the 

3 1\ United States through her Employment Authorization card until the 'entry and 

41\ inspection' issue is resolved by this Court." Id. at 8-9. Plaintiffrequests attorney's 

1\ fees and costs. Id. at 9. 

6 II III. Standards of Review 

7 II Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)( 6) permits dismissal for "failure to state 

8 II a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6). Federal Rule of 

911 Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must 

II contain ... a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

11 II to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "A district court's dismissal for failure to state a 

1211 claim under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper ifthere is a 'lack of a, 

13 II cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable 

1411 legal theory.'" Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

16 IV. Contentions of the Parties 

17 II Defendants contend that their Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative, Motion for 

1811 Summary Judgment should be granted because: 

19 	 The first cause of action does not specify how Plaintiff was deprived of 

an "opportunity" to obtain lawful permanent resident status and appears 

to be based solely on the fact that uscrs denied her application. Her own 

complaint, incluaing the attached exhibit, shows that uscrs received her 

21 ,!pphcation, interviewed her on the application~ considered her testimony tfiat she was inspected and admitted, and adjudicated the application, 22 determining that ber testimony was not credible .... 

23 	 The second cause of action does not specify how uscrs misinterpreted 

the definition of"inspected and admitted" in 8 U.S.C. § 1255 or otherwise 

24 	 failed to apply the raw, and it appears that it is founded on Plaintiffs 

(inaccurate) allegations that '[t]he credibility of Plaintiff has not been 

raised by USCIS nor is in di~pute' [Doc. 1, para. 6] and that 'USCIS did 

NOT make a determination tfiat Plaintiff was not a credible witness.' 

26 

(ECF No. 7-1 at 4). Defendants contend that they made a determination that Plaintiff 

2711 

was not a credible witness when they expressly "rejected her testimony that she was 

2811 

'waved through' as a passenger in a car at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in 2002, 

- 4-	 lScv1900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
1 II because the testimony' lack[ ed] credibility.' (ECF No.9 at 1). Defendants contend that 

2 II "[i]n Plaintiff s case, there was neither any extrinsic, impeachment evidence bearing 

3 II on her truthfulness nor any corroborating evidence to support her story, so USCIS had 

411 to consider only the believability of her story." Id. at 2. Defendants contend that 

5 II Plaintiff did not satisfy her burden to prove that she has been inspected and admitted 

611 to the United States. Defendants contend that because the "USCIS's credibility 

7 II determination was discretionary, and was made in the context of adjustment of status 

8 II proceedings, the ruling is not reviewable by the district courts ...." Id. Additionally, 

9 Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not specifically raise any constitutional issues 

10 thus district courts do not have jurisdiction based on constitutional grounds. 

11 II Plaintiff contends that Defendant's motion should be denied because USCIS 

1211 simply "typed those words" rejecting Plaintiffs testimony on the denial letter but 

13 II "failed to state or determine where or what part in any of her evidence ... was not 

1411 credible or sufficient. Nor did they provide any evidence to refute or show that Feria's 

1511 claim of her inspection and admission was not true or accurate." (ECF No.8 at 4). 

16 II Plaintiff contends that when noncitizens are "waved" through inspection at a port of 

17 II entry without being asked any questions by the inspecting officer, noncitizens do not 

18 need any more corroborating evidence other than their testimonies to establish entry. 

19 V. Discussion 

20 In order for an applicant to qualify for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 

21 resident based on the status of immediate family relations, the applicant must, among 

22 other things, establish that she "was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United 

23 II States." 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The applicant has the burden to prove that she had been 

2411 inspected and admitted to the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8. 

25 II The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully denied an adjustment of 

2611 status because Defendants did not make a credibility determination regarding 

27 II Plaintiff s testimony that she was inspected and admitted into the United States. In the 

28 11 letter attached to the Complaint, the USCIS states that it considered Plaintiff s 

- 5 - 15cv1900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II testimony: "After a thorough review ofyour application and supporting documents, and 

211 your testimony during your interview, unfortunately, we must inform you that we are 

311 denying your application ...." (ECF No.1 at 10). The USCIS found that although 

411 "[t]he documents in support of [Plaintiffs] claimed entry into the United States have 

II been reviewed and considered," Plaintiffs testimony "lack[ ed] credibility." Id. at 11. 

611 The USCIS letter stated, 

7 [Plaintiff] entered the United States at the a~ of 19 or 20 years old while 

sitting in the back of a car with people laintif did not know and 

8 [Plaintiffs] claim that [Plaintiff] presente [hersel~ for inspection and 

were allowed to proceeo into the United States witnout clanfying [her] 

9 status lack credibili!:y. In addition, system checks did not reveal any record ~hat rshe was] ever issued any nonimmigrant visa to legally enter 

the Umted States. 

11 II Id. The USCIS concluded that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing 

12 II that she has been inspected and admitted to the United States not only because Plaintiff 

13 II did not have any paper documentation ofher alleged entry into the United States but 

1411 also because Plaintiffs testimony lacked credibility. 

II Plaintiff does not allege facts to support an inference that Defendants 

16 II erroneously and unlawfully interpreted the definition of "inspected and admitted" 

1711 under INA § 245. The letter attached to the Complaint shows that the USCIS made a 

18 II determination that Plaintiff was not a credible witness before denying her applicationJ 

19 II The discretionary determination that Plaintiff was not credible is not reviewable by the 

II district court. Section 1252(a)(2)(B) of 8 U.S.C. states, "Notwithstanding any other 

21 II provision of law ... and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is 

22 II made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review- (i) any 

23 judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1255 of this title ...." 8 

24 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals has held that the REAL 

ID Act did not impact its determination that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) "eliminates 

26 jurisdiction only over decisions that involve the exercise ofdiscretion." Mamigonian 

27 v. Biggs, 710F.3d 936,943 (9thCir. 2013) (quotingMontero-Martinezv. Ashcroft, 277 

28 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002). Because a credibility determination is a decision that 

- 6- 15cvl900 WQH (KSCj 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II involves the exercise of discretion, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review a 

211 challenge to an adjustment ofstatus denial when the denial was based on the USCIS's 

3 II determination that the applicant lacked credibility. The Court concludes that the 

411 Complaint lacks "a cognizable legal theory." See Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 

1242. The motion to dismiss is granted. 

6 VII. Conclusion 

7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.5) is granted. 

8 The Complaint is dismissed. 

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for leave to file an amended 

II complaint must be filed within two weeks of the date this Order is filed and must 

11 demonstrate the Court has jurisdiction over the case. If a motion for leave to file an 

12 amended complaint is not filed within two weeks of the date this Order is filed, the 

1311 Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 

14 

1611 Dated: 

17 

II 4P/J 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 7 - 15cvl900 WQH (KSC) 

Case 3:15-cv-01900-WQH-KSC Document 10 Filed 08/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7