Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180403_0002258.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:00:07+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DIMISSES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein.
A complaint must be dismissed if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Jurisdiction is a threshold separation of powers issue and may not be deferred until trial. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be facial or factual. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). In reviewing a facial attack, the Court assumes all material allegations in the complaint are true and only dismisses if those allegations are insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. General Tel. Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). In reviewing a factual attack, the Court may consider materials beyond the complaint. McCarthy v. U.S., 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988); see Americopters, LLC v. F.A.A., 441 F.3d 726, 732 n.4 (9th Cir. 2006) (When determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, “the district court is not confined by the facts contained in the four corners of the complaint-it may consider [other] facts and need not assume the truthfulness of the complaint.”).
A district court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims involving issues to be adjudicated in a removal proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9); see J.E.F.M v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir. 2012) (extending this jurisdictional bar to APA claims). Outside of the Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals, such issues may only be considered by the court of appeals, through a petition for review, and only once a removal proceeding is complete. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(2). But a district court may consider claims “independent of . . . challenges to removal orders.” Martinez, 704 F.3d at 622 (citing Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2007)). Thus, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff raises “independent claims” or an “indirect challenge” to a removal order. Id. The Court has jurisdiction over the first, but not the second. The distinction “[turns] on the substance of the relief” Plaintiff is seeking. Id. (emphasis added). A claim is “inextricably linked” to a removal order if the order would be “contingent” on the claim raised or if the relief sought could undercut the order. Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 v.