Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01835/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01835-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN CARLOS ORDONEZ-GARAY )

and GLORIA ORDONEZ, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-1835 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Documents #20 & #24)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs ask this court

to compel employees of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to process Plaintiffs’

applications and petitions. The court has jurisdiction over this mandamus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

BACKGROUND

On December 19, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for writ of mandamus. The first

claim requests that the court order Defendants to provide Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay with his Alien

File and his I-94 card pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FIOA”). The second claim

requests that the court order Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff Ordonez’s I-130 petition for her

husband, Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay.

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 7
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

On March 23, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of

mandamus was moot because Defendants have adjudicated the I-130 petition and have provided

all parts of Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay’s Alien File that are not subject to certain exemptions. On

April 16, 2007, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion on the ground that Defendants’

documents had not been authenticated. On May 25, 2007, the court denied Defendants’ motion

without prejudice. The court reasoned that Defendants had failed to meet their initial burden on

the motion to dismiss because Defendants’ evidence was not “properly before the court.” 

On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Defendants contend that because both claims for relief have been favorable resolved during the

pendency of this lawsuit, this action is now subject to dismissal as moot. Defendants provide

evidence that Plaintiff’s relative immigrant visa petition has been approved and is being

forwarded to the National Visa Center. Defendants also provide their response to Plaintiffs’

FOIA requests, along with a declaration confirming that the provided response is a true and a

complete copy of the agency’s final action.

On August 8, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are

in default because they have not timely filed a responsive pleading to the complaint. In addition,

Plaintiffs point out that they have not been given all documents in response to their FOIA

requests. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that they have not yet received a final visa, and Plaintiffs

should not be forced to pay another filing fee to ensure that they timely receive a visa.

On August 14, 2007, Defendants filed a reply.

FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jean Carlos Ordonez-Garay is a citizen of Venezuela. Plaintiff Gloria Ordonez

is a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay and Plaintiff Ordonez are married. 

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay entered the United States on or about

November 22, 2000, seeking refuge in the United States following his escape from forced

military recruitment in Venezuela. The complaint alleges that at some time after November 22,

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 7
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 3

2000, an asylum officer was satisfied that Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay demonstrated a credible fear

of persecution in Venezuela. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was issued advance parole

documents, including an I-94 card. 

The complaint alleges that as part of Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay’s attempts to adjust his

status, Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay needed a copy of his I-94 card to prove that he had been legally

paroled into the United States. The complaint alleges that because some of Plaintiff OrdonezGaray’s immigration records, including the I-94 card, were lost, Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay made a

request under FOIA for his entire Alien File. The complaint alleges that despite several

requests, no file for Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay was ever provided. 

The complaint alleges that on or about June 6, 2005, Plaintiff Gloria Ordonez filed an

I-130 petition, along with a Request for Exemption Based on Bona Fide Marriage, and all

appropriate documentation, in order to make Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay eligible for permanent

residence as her husband and the husband of a United States citizen. The complaint alleges that

despite the fact both Plaintiffs made themselves available for an interview, the petition has not

been adjudicated. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction. Limits upon federal jurisdiction must not be disregarded or evaded. Owen

Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The plaintiff has the burden to

establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient

allegations to show a proper basis for the court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the

action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(1). When a defendant challenges jurisdiction “facially,” all material allegations in the

complaint are assumed true, and the question for the court is whether the lack of federal

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 7
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 4

jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading itself. Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General

Telephone Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9 Cir. 1979); Cervantez v. Sullivan, 719 F. Supp. th

899, 903 (E.D. Cal.1989), rev’d on other grounds, 963 F. 2d 229 (9 Cir.1992). th

A defendant may also attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction factually. 

Mortensen, 549 F. 2d at 891. Factual attacks on jurisdiction brought under Rule 12(b)(1) allow

the court to look at evidence beyond the complaint. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9 Cir. th

2000). Once the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a factual motion by

presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the

motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction. Savage v. Glendale Union High School, Dist. No. 205, Maricopa

County, 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 n.2 (9 Cir. 2003); La Reunion Francaise SA v. Barnes, 247 F.3d th

1022, 1026 n.2 (9 2001); St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9 Cir. 1989). In a th th

factual attack, the court may rely on evidence extrinsic to the pleadings and resolve factual

disputes relating to jurisdiction. St. Clair, 880 F. 2d at 201. “No presumptive truthfulness

attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude

the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.” Thornhill

Publishing, 594 F.2d at 733.

DISCUSSION

The Mandamus and Venue Act of 1961 states: “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the

United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361

Mandamus is only available when (1) a plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty is

ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) there is no other adequate

remedy available. Guerrero v. Clinton, 157 F.3d 1190 (9 Cir.1998); Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d th

929, 931 (9 Cir. 1998). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Patel, 134 F.3d at 931. th

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

A. Request to Process Plaintiffs’ I-130 Petition

Defendants contend that this action for mandamus relief has become moot because

Plaintiffs have received what they ask for in the complaint. Article III of the United States

Constitution requires the existence of a live case or controversy throughout all stages of federal

judicial proceedings. LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1153

(9 Cir. 2006); Gator.Com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128- 29 (9 Cir.2005) (en th th

banc). The court has no power to decide cases that do not affect the rights of litigants in the

case before them. Defunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d

517, 527-28 (9 Cir. 1996). “To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant th

must have suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” 

Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City

of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 13523 (9 Cir. 1984). th

If there is no longer a possibility that a party can obtain the relief requested in a

complaint, a claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. GTE California, Inc.

v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (9 Cir.1994). A case or controversy

th

justifying declaratory relief exists only when the challenged activity, “by its continuing and

brooding presence, casts what may well be a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the

petitioning parties." Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 483 F.3d 984, 988 (9 Cir.2007); th

Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9 Cir. 2003). A case becomes moot if the “the issues th

presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”

Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). (1983). The court should dismiss a petition for a

writ of mandamus that has become moot by subsequent events. See GATX/Airlog Co. v. U.S.

Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 192 F.3d 1304, 1306 (9 Cir. 1999); Gomez v. U.S. th

Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 966 F.2d 463, 464 (9 Cir. 1992); Application of th

Williams, 227 F.2d 727, 728 (9 Cir. 1956). When a case becomes moot, the court loses subject

th

matter jurisdiction. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be reviewed as a motion

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

challenging this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as allowed for by 12(b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may look to evidence outside the

pleadings to decide whether the court has jurisdiction. 

Here, Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff Ordonez’s I-130 petition has been

approved. The petition has been forwarded to the National Visa Center. While not disagreeing

that the I-130 petition was approved, Plaintiffs take the position that further obstacles may still be

posed after approval of the petition but prior to an adjustment in Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay’s

status. Plaintiff’s position is that if this court does not maintain jurisdiction, some unspecific

harm may fall upon Plaintiffs while the petition is processed at other stages. An action fails on

ripeness grounds when the complaint seeks to address contingent future events that may not

occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300

(1998); Association of American Medical Colleges v. U.S., 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9 Cir.) 2000). th

Plaintiffs’ request that the court maintain jurisdiction to ensure Defendants and others continue to

correctly process Plaintiff’s I-130 petition are not ripe for adjudication. Thus, Plaintiffs’

arguments about future, possible delays in obtaining a visa are simply not ripe for adjudication.

B. FOIA

 Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ FOIA request is moot. Defendants provide a letter

concerning Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay’s FOIA request. This letter states that 1346 pages out of

1511 pages have been provided and explains why the remaining pages are exempt from the FOIA

request. Because Defendants have provided most of the FOIA request, they claim this

contention is also moot. Plaintiffs contend that their FOIA claim is not moot because Plaintiffs

were not given everything they requested under FOIA. 

Plaintiffs are seeking their FOIA requests through a mandamus action. Mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy. Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd, 695 F.2d 1179, 1180 (9 Cir.1983). th

Mandamus cannot be used to serve the purpose of an ordinary suit, and it is limited to only issues

where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and plainly

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

defined. United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931). The availability

of an adequate alternative remedy precludes mandamus jurisdiction concerning FOIA requests. 

Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9 Cir.1986). Mandamus to allow Plaintiffs to obtain th

additional documents would permit them to circumvent the procedures established by FOIA to

obtain documents. Thus, mandamus jurisdiction is lacking because Plaintiffs can resort to

FOIA to obtain the information they seek. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 10/03/07 Page 7 of 7