Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01835/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01835-2/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 DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document #14)

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 for relief 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 for relief 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 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 6
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 as moot. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus is now moot because

Defendants have adjudicated the I-130 petition and provided all parts of Plaintiff OrdonezGaray’s Alien File that are not subject to certain exemptions.

On April 16, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants

failed to meet their burden on this motion to dismiss because they merely attached papers to the

motion. Plaintiffs also ask for the opportunity to amend their complaint.

On April 23, 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,

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

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 6
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

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 6
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

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

Defendants contend that this action for mandamus relief has become moot. Plaintiffs

contend that Defendants’ motion is legally insufficient because Defendants have simply attached

papers to their motion. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that whether Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay has

been given all pages of his Alien File to which he is entitled remains unclear. Finally, Plaintiffs

state that they may wish to amend their complaint to seek a different writ of mandamus.

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. th

Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128- 29 (9 Cir. 2005) (en banc). If there is no longer a possibility th

that a party can obtain relief, a claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, –F.3d–, 2007 WL 1217738, *1 (9 Cir. 2007) Foster v. th

Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9 Cir. 2003); Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A., 167 F.3d 514, 521 (9

th th

Cir.1999). This court has no jurisdiction to hear a case that cannot affect the litigant's rights.

Allard v. DeLorean, 884 F.2d 464, 466 (9 Cir.1989). th

A case becomes moot if the “the issues 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). “To

satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant 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). 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

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 6
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

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

Northern Dist. of California, 966 F.2d 463, 464 (9 Cir. 1992); Application of Williams, 227 th

F.2d 727, 728 (9 Cir. 1956). A case is moot only if interim events have completely and th

irrevocably eradicated the effects of alleged improper conduct raised in the petition for writ of

mandamus. See GATX/Airlog Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 192 F.3d

at 1306; In Re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9 Cir.1997). If it appears that the court is th

without power to grant the relief requested, then a case is moot. Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d

773, 775 (9 Cir.1991). The party asserting mootness has the heavy burden of establishing that

th

there is no effective relief remaining for a court to provide. GATX/Airlog Co., 192 F.3d at 1306.

When a case becomes moot, the court loses subject matter jurisdiction. As such,

Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be reviewed as a motion 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. In general, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that subject matter

jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. However, if a party seeks to dismiss an

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on evidence outside the pleadings, the moving

party must rely on “affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court” to show a lack

of jurisdiction. Savage, 343 F.3d at 1040 n.2; St. Clair, 880 F.2d at 201. Only if affidavits or

other evidence is provided does the burden shift to the plaintiff to furnish affidavits or other

evidence necessary to “satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” St. Clair,

880 F.2d at 201.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed in their initial burden on this motion by

merely attaching documents to their pleadings. Attached to Defendants’ motion is a copy of

what appears to be portions of Plaintiff Ordonez’s I-130 petition. The petition appears to have

been stamped “APPROVED”. Also attached to Defendants’ motion is a copy of a notice of

approval of relative immigrant visa petition. Attached to Defendants’ reply is a letter written to

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Plaintiff Ordonez-Garay’s attorney that appears to be Defendants’ response to Plaintiff OrdonezGaray’s FOIA request. This letter states that 1346 pages out of 1511 pages are being provided

and explains why the remaining pages are exempt from the FOIA request. 

Because Plaintiffs take the position that Defendants failed to meet their initial burden on

the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to find

that Defendants’ evidence is not “properly before the court.” Defendants offer no affidavits to

support their position. The evidence Defendants do provide is not authenticated in any respect. 

Plaintiffs have not conceded and/or stipulated to the truth of Defendants’ evidence. As such, the

court finds that the documents attached to Defendants’ pleadings cannot be considered because

this evidence is not “properly before the court.”

In their opposition, Plaintiffs state that they may wish to amend the complaint. Because

the court is not dismissing the complaint at this time, it is unnecessary to give Plaintiffs a

deadline by which they must filed an amended complaint. The court refers the parties to Rule 15

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning any amended pleadings. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01835-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 6 of 6