IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40166

Summary Calendar

VERONICA MARTINEZ DE ESPARZA,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CV-24

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Veronica Martinez de Esparza applied for a United States passport in June 

2008. After the Department of State (DOS) denied her application, in 2009

Martinez filed this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), which provides for declaratory 

relief from a final agency determination denying any right or privilege as a 

national of the United States, upon grounds of citizenship. In November 2012, 

DOS determined Martinez met her burden of proof to establish her United States 

citizenship and issued her a passport. As a result, DOS moved to dismiss this 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40166 Document: 00512464607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2013
No. 13-40166

action on the grounds that the issuance of the passport mooted Martinez’ claim 

for a declaration of citizenship under § 1503(a). Martinez challenges the district 

court’s granting the dismissal motion.

Martinez contends the district court erred in concluding her action was 

moot because DOS issued her a passport. She contends that DOS and Border 

Patrol Agents have the authority to revoke or confiscate a passport without prior 

notice or hearing. For that reason, she maintains she has a concrete interest in 

obtaining a declaration of citizenship under § 1503(a), which will not expire and 

can only be rescinded or modified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 

Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. E.g., Ramming v. United States, 

281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Martinez bears the burden of proof to show 

jurisdiction exists. Id. 

“An individual who claims a denial of a right or privilege as a national by 

any department or independent agency may seek a declaration of citizenship 

under § 1503(a).” Garcia v. Freeman, No. 12-41458, 2013 WL 5670856, at *1 (5th 

Cir. 18 Oct. 2013) (citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). Actions under § 1503(a) 

“may be instituted only within five years after the final administrative denial of 

such right or privilege”. Garcia, 2013 WL 5670856, at *1 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1503(a)(2) (emphasis added)) (citation omitted). “The requisite personal interest 

that must exist at the commencement of litigation (standing) must continue 

throughout its existence (mootness).” Id. (quoting Moore v. Hosemann, 591 F.3d 

741, 744 (5th Cir. 2009)). “Generally, any set of circumstances that eliminates 

[the] actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action 

moot.” Id. (In her reply brief, Martinez concedes she is not asserting that an 

exception to the mootness doctrine applies.)

“A district court does not have jurisdiction to review claims under § 1503(a) 

where plaintiff has not been denied a right or privilege as a national of the United 

States pursuant to a final administrative determination.” Id. (citations omitted). 

2

 Case: 13-40166 Document: 00512464607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2013
No. 13-40166

Martinez has not shown she was denied a right or privilege as a United States 

national as a result of DOS’ decision to issue her a passport because it may be 

used as evidence of her citizenship during its period of validity. Id. (citations 

omitted). Martinez’ contention that she still has a concrete interest in obtaining 

a declaration of citizenship fails for the same reason the plaintiff’s contention in 

Garcia failed. “[E]ssentially, she seeks an advisory opinion that could be used in 

the event an official challenges her citizenship in the future”. Id. DOS issued 

Martinez a United States passport, and, therefore, she has not been denied a right 

or privilege of a United States national. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-40166 Document: 00512464607 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2013