### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 0 9- 40004 RO NAL P OR F I RI O O RD ONE Z OR OS CO P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t v. JA N E T N A PO LITA N O , Sec r et ar y o f t he D epar t m ent of

H om el and Secur i t y; E D U A R D O L O Z A N O , I m m i grati on an d C u st om s E n f orcem en t O f

f i cer; U N N A ME D S U P E R V I S O R YI MMI G R A T I O N A N D C U S T O MS ENFORCEMEN T OFF I CERS ; a n d T HE UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA R espon den t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. G A R W O O D , C i rcui t Ju dg e: Th e Vi c t i m s o f

T r a f f i c k i n g a n d Vi o l e n c e P r o t e c t i o n Ac t o f 2 0 0 0 (VT VP A) am en ded t h e I m m i grati on an d N ati on al i t y A ct( IN A ) i n part t o cr eate a new typ e of visa, k n ow n as a “U -V i sa . ” V T V P A , P u b . L . N o. 1 0 6 -38 6 , 11 4 S tat. 146 4 ( O ct . 28, 200 0) . U
- V i sas c an be gran t ed to vi ct i m s of cer t ai n l i st ed cri m es w h o l aterhel p U n i t ed S t ates l aw enfor cem en t of f i ci al s i n vest i gate or pr o s e c ut e t ho s e c r i m e s . 8 U . S. C. A. § 1 10 1( a) ( 15 ) ( U ) ( i ) (W e s t 2 00 5 & Supp . 2009) . I n or der t o o bt ai n a U
- V i sa , an al i en w ho w as t he vi c t i m of an e n u m e r a te d cr im e m u s t o b ta in a “c e r tific a tio n ” fr o m la w e n fo r c e m e n t o ffic ia ls United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 2, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/20102

c o nf i r m i ng t hathe w as he l pf ult o t he i nve s t i ga t i o n o r pr o s e c ut i o n o f t he crim e. 8 U . S . C . A . § 11 8 4 (p)( 1 ) (W est 2 0 0 5 ). T h e p a rti es in th i s ca se re fer t o th i s certif

i ca ti on as a “l a w en forcem en t certi fi ca ti on , ” w h i ch w e a b b rev i a te “L E C . ” P l ai n t i f f

- ap pel l an t , R on al P orf i ri o O rdoñ ez O rosc o ( O rdoñ ez) , sued defenda n t s- ap pel l ees, Jan et N ap ol i t an o, Secret ary of t h e D epa rt m en t of H om el an d S ecuri t y, E du ardo L ozan o, an of f i cer w i t h U n i t ed S t ates I m m i g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o m s En f o r c e m e n t ( I CE) , u n n a m e d s u p e r v i s o r y I CE of f i c er s, and t he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i c a. O r doñez s ought a w r i t of habeas c or pus t o c om pelt he def endant s t o i ss ue hi m an LE C under 28 U . S. C . § 2241, as w e l la s de c l ar at o r y and i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f und e r t he D e c l ar at o r y Jud gm e nt A c t , 28 U . S. C . § 2201, t he M andam us and Venu e Act(M andam us Act ) , 28 U . S. C. § 1 36 1, t he Fe de r alQ ue s t i o n St at ut e , 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 33 1, a nd t he A d mi n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s A c t (A P A ) , 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 4 . S p e c i f i c a l l y , h i s c l a i ms f or decl arator y an d i nj u n ct i ve rel i ef sough t t o enj oi n t h e use of 8 C . F . R . §§ 212. 17( a) and 214( a) ( 14) ( i i i ) and t o e nj oi n t he def endant s f

r om i nf or m i ng l oc al l aw enfor cem en t agen ci es t h at t h ey w ere not requ i red t o i ssue L E C s on d e m a n d . F in a lly , h e a s k e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o ce r tify a cla s s a c tio n . The de fe nda nt s m o ve d t o di s m i s s . The di s t r i c t c o ur t g r ant e d t he m ot i on, be c ause i t f

ound t hat a l aw enf

or c em ent age ncy’ s dec i si on t o i ss ue an L E C i s di scr et i on ary. O rdoñ ez t i m el y ap pea l ed. For t h e reasons di scussed b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS B E L OW O r d o ñ e z a n d h is b r o th e r re e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s ille g a lly in A p r il 20 07 w i t h t he he l p o f s m ugg l e r s . The s m ugg l e r s a ba ndo ne d t he b r o t he r s o n a ran ch n ear F al f

u rri as, T exas. O rdoñ ez’ s brot h er di ed of exh au st i on , exposu re t o t h e el em en t s, or h eat s t roke af t er t h e t w o w an dered fort h ree days. O rosc o Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/20103

survi ved an d w as subseq u en t l y ap preh en ded by of f i cers of U n i t ed S t ates C u s to m s a n d B o r d e r P r o te c tio n , w h o m h e to ld a b o u t h is b r o th e r ’ s d e a th . Su bs equent l y, he s ought an LE C f r om m ul t i pl e s t at e, l oc al , and fede r al of f i ci al s on t h e groun d that he w as a vi ct i m of t raf f i cki n g w h o ha d p rovi ded va l uab l e i nf

o r m at i o n t o l aw enf

o r c e m e nt o f

f i c i al s . Al lo f

t he o f f i c i al s he contact ed ref

u sed t o provi de h i m w i t h one. O rd oñ ez f

i l ed su i t ag a i n st t h e d efen d a n ts on O ctob er 3 , 20 0 7 , see k i n g to com pel t h em t o provi de h i m w i t h an L E C . Th e defen da n t s m oved t o di sm i ss for l a ck of su b j ect m a tter j u ri sd i cti on , l a ck of stan d i n g, an d f or fail u re to state a c l ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f c o ul d b e g r ant e d. The di s t r i c t c o ur t f o und t hatt he deci si on t o i ssue an L E C i s di scr et i on ary an d d i sm i ssed hi s c l ai m s f or w an t of s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n a nd s t and i ng. W e c o nc l ude , e s s e nt i al l y f o r t he r eas ons s t at ed byt he di st r i c t c our t i n i t s D ec em ber8, 2008 or der , t hat an of f i c i al ’ s dec i si on w het her ornot t o i ss ue an LE C i s di sc r et i onar y. DI S CU S S I ON Th e di spo si t i ve i ss ue i n t hi s c as e i s w het her t he dec i si on t o i ss ue an LE C i s di sc r et i onar y o r m andat or y. W e ho l d t hat i t i s di sc r et i onar y and t hat accordi n gl y t h e di st ri ct court properl y di sm i ssed O rdoñ ez’ s c l ai m s. I . St andard of

R evi ew W e rev i ew a d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to dism i ss for l a ck of su b j ectm a tt e r ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . B orden v. A l l st ateI n s. C o. , 589 F. 3d 168, 170 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . W e al so r evi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o di sm i ss f or l ack of s ta n d in g d e n o v o . Li t t l e v . KPM G, LLP , 5 7 5 F .3 d 5 3 3 , 5 4 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). D is tr ic t c o u r ts la c k s u b je c t-m a tt e r ju r is d ic tio n o v e r cla im s th a t a r e w h o lly i ns ubs t ant i ala nd f

r i vo l o us o r c l e ar l y i m m at e r i ala nd m ad e s o l e l y f o r t he p u r p o s e o f o b ta in in g ju r is d ic tio n . S t eelC o. v. C i t i zens f or a B et t er Envi r o nm e nt , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 0 (1 9 9 8 ). Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/20108 U.S.C. § 1 184provi des, inrel ev antpart: 1 “ § 1184. Admiss ionof noni mmigrant s * ** (p) Requirement s a pp li cabl e tosecti on 1101(a)(15) (U) vi sas (1) Pet it ion ing

pro ced ures fo r secti on 1101(a)(15) (U) vi sas Th e pe titio n file d byanalienu nder sectio n 110 1(a)(1 5)(U)(i) of this titleshall cont aina certificationfrom a F ederal, S tate, or l ocal law e nforc ementofficial , prose cuto r, j udge, o r other Fede ral, State , or local auth orityinve stig atin g crimin al activity describ ed in sectio n 110 1(a)(1 5)(U)(iii) o f this title. This certificationmayal so b e provided byanofficialof the Service whose abilityto provide such certification is n ot limitedto info rmatio n conc erningimmigrati on vi olation s. This certificationshall state that th e alie n ‘ha s be en helpful, is b ein g helpful, or i s likelyto be helpful’inth e investigatio n or p rosecutionof crim in al a ctivityd es crib edi nse ctio n1 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5 )(U) (iii) of thistitle . (2) Numeric all imitati ons (A) Th e n u mb ero f ali en s wh o mayb e is su edvis a s o r oth erwi se provided status as noni mmigrants u nder sectio n 110 1(a)(1 5)(U) o f this titleinany fiscalyear shall not e xce ed 1 0,00 0. ( B ) The nume rical limitation s insub para graph (A) shall o nly applyto principal alie ns de scribe d insection 110 1(a)(1 5)(U)(i) of this title , an d n ot t o spou ses, childre n, o r, inth e ca se of ali en chil dr en , th e ali enp are ntso f su chc hil dr en . (3) Dutiesof the Att orneyGeneralwit h resp ectto“U”vi sa noni mmigrant s Withrespe ct ton oni mmigrant ali ens describ ed in subsec tion (a)(15)(U) of sectio n 110 1 o f this title—

(A) th e Att orn eyGe n er al a n d oth ergovern me nt of fici als , where appropriate , shall provide thosealien s with referr als to non gove rnmental org ani zation s to advise the ali ens reg ardi ng their op tion s whil e in the Unit ed S tates and the resources 4 A di st ri ct court ’ s c ert i f i cat i on of

a cl ass i s r evi ew ed u n der t h e abu se of d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . S h i pes v. Tri n i ty I

n d u st ri es , 987 F . 2d 311 , 316 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt ha s w i d e d i scre ti on i n de ci d i n g w h eth er or n ot to c e r tify a p r o p o s e d cla s s . Id . I I . I s s u i n g L ECs O r d o ñ e z a r g u e s th a t la w e n fo r c e m e n t a g e n c ie s m u s t a u to m a tic a lly is s u e L E C s to a lie n s w h o s a tis fy th e s ta tu to r y p r e r e q u is ite s fo r re c e iv in g o n e . H e c ont ends t hat t he l anguage i n 8 U . S. C . § 1184( p) ( 1) , w hi c h pro vi des t hat 1 Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2010av ail abl e toth em; a nd ( B ) th e Att orn eyGe n er al sh all , duri n gth e pe ri odth os e ali ens are in lawfultempo raryresi dent status und er that subsec tion , provide the ali ens with employment authori zation . (4) Cred ibl e evi denc e co nsid ered Inac ting

onany petition file d u nder this subsec tion , th e co nsul ar office r orth e Attorn eyGene ral, as appropri ate, shall c onsi der any cr edib leevid encer el ev a nt toth e pe titi on .” 8U .S .C .A . § 1 1 8 4 (p ) (Wes t 2 0 0 5& S u pp . 2 0 0 9) (e mp h a si s ino ri gin al) . 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 provi des, inrel ev antpart: 2 “ § 1101. Definit ion s (a) As used in this chapter— * ** (15) Th e te rm ‘i mmigrant’ mean s everyalienexcept an ali en who is within oneof the foll owing cl asses o f no nimmigrant alie ns— * ** (U)(i) subje ct tosection 118 4(p) o f this title, an ali en who file s a petition for status u nder this para graph, if th e Se cretary of Homel and Securitydete rmine s that—

( I ) th e alie n has suffere d sub stanti al phy sical or me ntal abuseas a r esult of having be en a vic ti m o f crim in al a ctivityd es crib edi nc lau se (iii); ( I I ) th e alie n . . . possesses i nformation co n ce rnin gc ri mi n al a ctivityd es crib edi nc lau se (iii); ( I I I ) th e alie n . . . has bee n helpful, is b ein g helpful, or i s likelyto be helpful to aF ederal, State , or local l aw enforcement official. . . or local auth oriti es i nvestigatin g or p rosecuting crimin al activity describ ed in clau se (iii); and ( IV) th e crim in al a ctivityd es crib edi nc lau se (iii) viol ated the laws o f th e United State s or occurred in the Unit ed S tates (includin g in In diancou ntryan d military installation s) or the te rrit orie s an d po sse ssion s o f th e Unit edS tate s; * ** ( i i i ) th e crimin al activity referr ed tointhis cl auseis that i nvolving

on e o r moreof the foll owing or any similar activityinviol atio n of F ederal, S tate, or l ocal crim in al law: rape; torture; traffic king ; incest; do mestic

5 “ [ t ] he pe t i t i o n f

i l e d b y an al i e n und e r § 1 10 1( a) ( 15 ) ( U ) ( i ) . . . s hal lc o nt ai n a 2 Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2010vi olence; se xu al assault; abusivesexualcontact; prostitution ; sexualexploitati on; femalegenital mutil atio n; b ein g hel d h ostage; pe ona ge ; involunt ary servitud e; s lave tra de; kid napp ing; ab du ctio n ; u nlawful crim in al re straint; f als e imprison ment; blackmail; extorti on; manslaughter ; murde r; fel oni ous assault; witness tampering ; ob structi on of j ustice ; perj ury ; or attempt, conspiracy , or solic itationto co mmit a nyo f th e ab ove me nti on edc ri me s; . . .” 8U .S .C .A . § 1 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5 )(U) (We st2 0 0 5& S u pp . 2 0 0 9) (e mp h a si s ino ri gin al) . He never e xpl ain s whywe sh oul d ac cept this premise as co rrect. 3 6 c e r tific a tio n fr o m a F e d e r a l, S ta te , o r lo c a l la w e n fo r c e m e n t o ffic ia l, p rose cu tor, j u d ge , or oth er F ed era l , S tate, or local au th ority, ” i s a m a n d a te to l a w en forcem en t of

fi ci a l s to i ssu e L E C s, rath er th a n m ere l y a n i n stru cti on to al i e ns w ho i nt e nd t o a ppl y f o r U
- Vi s as . I n s upp o r t o f t hi s i nt e r pr e t at i o n, he not es t hat s ubse c t i ons ( p) ( 3) and ( p) ( 4) of § 1184 c ont ai n m andat es di r ec t ed at th e A ttorn ey G en era l . H e a l so a rg u es th a t, be ca u se a l i en s h a ve a righ t t o peti t i on f

or a U
- V i sa, an d becau se an L E C i s a necessary part of a U
- V i sa 3 a p p li c a t io n , it fo ll o w s th a t la w e n fo r c e m e n t o ff ic ia ls c a n n o t d e n y a n a li e n ’s r ig h t t o a p p ly fo r a U -V is a b y re fu s in g to is s u e h im a n L E C . W e d is a g r e e . W e th in k th e la n g u a g e o f § 1 1 8 4 (p ) m a k e s it a b u n d a n tly cl ear t h at t h e deci si on t o i ssue a l aw enfor cem en t cer t i f i cat i on i s a di s c r e t i o nar y o ne . I n t he f i r s t pl ac e , t he po r t i o n o f t he s t at ut e w hi c h c o nt ai ns O r do ñe z ’ s pur po r t e d m and at e i s e nt i t l e d “ P et i t i oni ng proc edure s f or s ec t i on 110 1( a) ( 15) ( U ) vi s as .” 8 U .S .C .A . § 1 1 8 4 (p )(1 ) (e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l). T h is s tr o n g ly im p lie s th a t a ll la n g u a g e co n ta in e d th e r e in is di r e c t e d t o w ar d t he a ppl i c anto f t he v i s a. Fur t he r m o r e , t he c o nt e nt o f t he LE C i t s e l f

r e qui r e s a n e xe r c i s e o f di s c r e t i o n e ve r y t i m e o ne i s i s s ue d. The L E C m u s t s ta te th a t t h e p e tit io n e r “‘h a s b e e n h e lp fu l, is b e in g h e lp fu l, o r is Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/02/20107

l i k ely to be h elpfu l ’ i n the i n ve sti ga ti on or p rose cu ti on of crim i n a lactivi ty. ” Id . W het her ornot an al i en has be en “ hel pf ul ” i s not an ob j ec t i ve d e te r m in a tio n th a t c a n b e m a d e m in is te r ia lly . It is e s p e c ia lly cle a r th a t t h is t yp e of deter m i n ati on i s di scr et i on ary w h ere t h e prosecuti on or i n vest i gati on i n q ue s t i o n ha s y e t t o b e i ni t i at e d o r c o m pl e t e d, a s i s e nvi s i o ne d i n t he statu te’ s “l i k ely to be h elpfu l ” l a n gu a ge , si n ce th e d ecisi on to i n i ti a te ( or to co n tin u e ) an in v e stig a tion or a p ro se cu tion is i tse lf a cla ss ic ex a m p le o f a di s c r e t i o nar y de c i s i o n. The r e f o r e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c o r r e c t l y he l d t hatt he dec i si on t o i ss ue an LE C i s di sc r et i onar y. O r d o ñ e z ’ s p le a d in g s re v e a l th a t a ll o f h is cla im s w e r e g r o u n d e d o n h is ar gum e nt t hatt he de c i s i o n t o i s s ue a n LEC i s m and at o r y. Bec aus e w e f i nd t h at t h i s argum en t i s t ot al l y m eri t l ess, w e hol d that t h e di st ri ctcourt di d n ot e r r in d is m is s in g h is s u it. A p la in tiff

ca n n o t r e p r e s e n t a cla s s o f w h o m h e is n o t a p a r t. B ai l ey v . Patt ers on , 82 S . C t . 549 , 550 ( 196 2) . Th eref ore, t h e di st ri ctcourt al so di d n ot e r r b y r e f

us i ng t o c e r t i f

y a c l as s a c t i o n. CO NC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nt o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t i s a f f i r m e d. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40004 Document: 00511039330 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2010