Opinion ID: 219818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Second Dismissal Order

Text: On May 28, 2010, the district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The district court again concluded that, with the exception of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statutes the Plaintiffs relied upon did not supply subject matter jurisdiction.3 Although the district court found that the 2 Many of the named Plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel, filed individual lawsuits against the Defendants challenging the denial or revocation of their I-140 petitions. See Bathazi v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 667 F. Supp.2d 1375, 1377 n.2, 1378-79 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (listing ten cases and ordering Bathazi’s counsel to show cause why he should not be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for persistently filing frivolous challenges to the I-140 adjudication process). In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a mandamus action against DHS, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Sibley v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 07-cv-21309 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). 3 The district court dismissed the non-Bivens claims of plaintiffs Leevan Sands and Istvan Bathazi on collateral estoppel grounds because their earlier, very similar actions were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 7 Bivens claim against the individual Defendants provided a basis for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, that Bivens claim failed on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, the district court determined that: (1) an official’s erroneous or irrational decision based on a presumptively valid statute does not constitute a constitutional violation; and (2) aliens do not have a constitutionally protected interest in discretionary immigration decisions. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice and gave the Plaintiffs until June 9, 2010 to file a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. E. Denial of Motion for Leave To File Third Amended Complaint The Plaintiffs filed a timely motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and attached a proposed third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs’ motion argued that the third amended complaint stated a proper Bivens claim because the individual Defendants’ decisions to deny or revoke already approved I-140 petitions was made without a rational explanation, departed from established policies and rested on an impermissible basis. The Plaintiffs cited recent decisions from the Administrative Appeals Office that a swimmer need only provide evidence that he or she would continue to participate in competitive swimming at the national or international level by swimming or coaching. 8 On November 2, 2010, the district court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The district court found that the proposed amendment would be futile and adopted and incorporated its prior May 28, 2010 dismissal order. With respect to the Bivens claim, the district court reiterated that: (1) there is no Bivens liability because the individual Defendants relied on a presumptively valid statute in denying or revoking the Plaintiffs’ I-140 petitions; and (2) a visa does not constitute a liberty or property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs timely appealed as to the district court’s November 2, 2010 order denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.