Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02019-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIU YING WONG WOO, and KENNEDY )

YUEH KIONG WOO WONG, ) 2:07-cv-2019-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Secretary, )

United States Department of Health )

and Human Services; REAR ADMIRAL )

KENNETH P. MORITSUGU, M.D., M.P.H.,)

Acting Surgeon General, Office of )

the Surgeon General; JULIE LOUISE )

GERBERDING, M.D., M.P.H., Director,)

Centers for Disease Control and )

Prevention; CONDOLEEZA RICE, )

Secretary, United States )

Department of State; and KRISTIE )

A. KENNEDY, Ambassador of the )

United States to the Republic of )

the Phillipines, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Shiu Ting Wong Woo

(“Woo”) and Kennedy Yueh Kiong Woo Wong’s (“Wong”) (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Case 2:07-cv-02019-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 5
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

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the consular

nonreviewability doctrine bars jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims

that Wong was wrongfully denied an immigrant visa. 

Wong applied for an immigrant visa in 2005, based upon an

approved immigrant visa petition filed by his mother, Woo. (Compl. ¶

43.) As part of the visa application process, Wong appeared at the

United States Embassy in the Philippines for a medical examination by

a panel physician. (Id. ¶ 44.) Wong admitted during this examination

he had tried marijuana several times in the past. (Id.) 

Subsequently, a consular officer at the United States Embassy informed

Plaintiffs that Wong’s visa was denied since he was inadmissible into

the United States because he was a controlled substance violator. 

(Id. ¶ 46.) The consular officer did not inform Wong whether he had

an opportunity to seek administrative review of the inadmissibility

finding. (Id. ¶ 47.)

Plaintiffs allege Defendants exceeded their statutory

authority when denying Wong’s visa application “based solely upon his

admission to experimental drug use, in the absence of any evidence of

his prosecution or conviction for violating controlled substances

laws.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs also allege that the panel physician

improperly reported Wong’s admission to past drug use was a “Class A”

or “Class B” medical condition, which would make him inadmissible to

the United States. (Id. ¶ 95.) Plaintiffs further allege Defendants

exceeded their statutory authority by “delegating their statutory

mandate to independently review and adjudicate Mr. Wong’s immigrant

visa application to a panel physician . . .” (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs

also allege Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights by

denying them an opportunity to challenge the inadmissibility finding

Case 2:07-cv-02019-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 5
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

This decision is citable under Federal Rule of Appellate 1

Procedure 32.1 and Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Although Capistrano is not

binding precedent (Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3), its reasoning is

persuasive.

3

through administrative review. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs seek

declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act

and the Administrative Procedures Act, including an order vacating the

consular officer’s denial of Wong’s visa application and compelling

another medical examination. (Id. at 54-55.)

Defendants seek dismissal, arguing “[i]t is well-settled

federal courts lack jurisdiction to review visa-related decisions made

by United States consular officers. Accordingly, the doctrine of

consular nonreviewability . . . precludes . . . review[] [of] any

decision of a consular officer regarding the adjudication of a visa.” 

(Mot. at 2:3-9.)

The Ninth Circuit recently held in an unpublished

disposition that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability deprives

district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint

alleging government officials exceeded their statutory authority when

denying a visa application based on an applicant’s admission of onetime or experimental drug use. Capistrano v. Dep’t of State, 2008 WL

466181, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2008). The Ninth circuit stated in 1

Capistrano: “We have consistently held that this doctrine prevents us

from reviewing decisions reached by consular officials regarding the

entry of visa applicants.” Id. (citing Ventura-Escamilla v.

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.

1981) (holding that district courts lack jurisdiction when “the relief

sought is a review of the Consul’s decision denying [plaintiff’s]

application for a visa”)). 

Case 2:07-cv-02019-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiffs counter that their complaint is not barred by the 

consular nonreviewability doctrine, relying on Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d

929, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1997), in which the Ninth Circuit held that

“when [a] suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail

to take an action as opposed to a decision within the consul’s

discretion,” the consular nonreviewability doctrine does not bar

jurisdiction. Id. However, “Patel simply holds that where a consular

officer has a nondiscretionary duty to act but refuses to do so, the

court can grant mandamus relief and force the consulate to issue a

decision.” Nwansi v. Rice, 2006 WL 2032578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 18,

2006). In Patel, the consular officers “refused to act” on pending

visa applications. Patel, 134 F.3d at 932. Patel does not address

the situation here, since Defendants have acted by denying Wong’s visa

application. 

Plaintiffs further argue the consular nonreviewability

doctrine does not apply because they challenge the “consular

officials’ failure to exercise their discretionary authority to issue

or refuse visas,” the “unlawful[] delegat[ion] [of Defendants’]

statutory and regulatory authority” to the panel physician, and the

denial of an opportunity to challenge the inadmissibility finding. 

(Opp’n at 5:18-6:2.) The essence of Plaintiff’s challenge is to the

process in which Defendants denied Wong’s visa application. But a

“challeng[e] [to] the process followed by the consulate rather than

its ultimate decision” is “not exempt . . . from th[e] well-settled

doctrine” of consular nonreviewability since “[a]t its core, the

relief sought . . . would require the [] consulate to revisit its

decision denying the visa applications[; and,] [i]ssuing such relief

would be exactly what the doctrine of consular nonreviewability

Case 2:07-cv-02019-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/27/08 Page 4 of 5
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

prevents [federal courts] from doing.” Capistrano, 2008 WL 466181, at

*1; see also Aggarwal v. Sec’y of State, 951 F. Supp. 642, 649 (S.D.

Tex. 1996) (holding consular nonreviewability doctrine barred

plaintiff’s suit which alleged procedural due process claim based on

lack of opportunity to rebut reason for visa denial decision). 

Accordingly, Defendants’ dismissal motion is granted. This action is

dismissed, and judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-02019-GEB-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/27/08 Page 5 of 5