Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01775/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01775-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa 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

- 1 - 11cv1775

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DE LOURDES PEREZ-BASURTO,

et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV1775 JLS (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF No. 4)

vs.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary

of State, et al.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 4) 

Also before the Court is Maria de Lourdes Perez-Basurto and Juan Manuel Pasalagua y Branch’s

(“Pasalagua,” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”) response, indicating that “Plaintiffs do not object to

the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” (Response 1, ECF No. 6)

Plaintiffs filed this action on August 10, 2011, requesting “[t]hat the Court . . . order the

Defendants to provide Plaintiffs the evidence and basis for their determination of [immigrant visa]

ineligibility.” (Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1) Plaintiffs allege that Pasalagua was denied an immigrant

visa “because of some prior incident of immigration fraud or misrepresentation,” (id. ¶ 5), but that

Pasalagua “has no access to government records with which to contest the allegation that he is

ineligible for an immigrant visa (or to confirm that he does have a ground of ineligibility),” (id.

¶ 9).

Case 3:11-cv-01775-JLS-BGS Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 11cv1775

Defendants move to dismiss on several bases, including that “Plaintiffs have not initiated –

let alone exhausted – the administrative procedure specifically intended to grant them the relief

they seek in this litigation: a Freedom of Information Act request for Pasalagua’s immigration

records.” (Mot. to Dismiss 1–2, ECF No. 4) 

Plaintiffs apparently consent to dismissal because they have obtained the information they

hoped to obtain by filing the instant complaint: “[T]he lawsuit was an attempt to see if [defense]

counsel could help resolve the problem of the lack of documentation concerning an allegation of

fraud in certain immigration matters. . . . Defendants’ counsel was apparently unable to determine

if any assistance was available.” (Response 1–2, ECF No. 6) And since filing the complaint,

Plaintiffs have sought “assistance from the administrative agencies concerned through the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2).” (Id. at 2)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ complaint is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01775-JLS-BGS Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2