Opinion ID: 465461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Steven Krup, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Text: Before PHILLIPS and SNEEDEN, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE, United States District Judge, sitting by designation. JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge: 1 The government appeals the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the deportation of the Gallanosa family pending the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) complete review of the Gallanosas' application for suspension of deportation. The government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because the Gallanosas had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Gallanosas counter that the necessary medical care of one of the Gallanosas' United States citizen children presented a substantial constitutional question sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court. We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of claimant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that this want of jurisdiction was not cured by the claim involving the citizen child's medical needs, as this claim did not rise to the level of a substantial constitutional question. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand with directions to dismiss the action. 2  The procedural history of this case is complex and involves numerous INS and district court proceedings. Gallanosa, a Phillipine national, entered the United States in 1975 on a J-1 visa pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15)(J) in order to obtain medical training. The visa authorized Gallanosa to remain in this country for no longer than two years and required his return to the Phillipines for at least two years following his medical training before he could become eligible for permanent residence here. Gallanosa was originally accompanied by his wife and one child, though, they have subsequently had three children born in this country. 3 After granting a number of extensions of the Gallanosas' stay, the INS instituted deportation proceedings. An immigration judge found the Gallanosas deportable in October of 1983 but granted them six months voluntary departure. 1 When the Gallanosas failed to depart, a warrant of deportation was issued requiring their departure by May 3, 1984. 4 In response, on May 1, 1984, the Gallanosas filed the first of three motions to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for suspension of deportation with an immigration judge in Dallas (Dallas I). 2 On May 3, 1984, the immigration judge denied the motion. Because the Gallanosas had failed to submit a suspension application and fee, the Dallas I judge found the motion to reopen procedurally defective. He therefore treated the motion as an emergency request for stay of deportation which he denied. The immigration judge also noted that as an exchange visitor, Gallanosa would be ineligible for suspension pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(f). 5 The same day the Dallas I motion was denied, the Gallanosas filed the first of two actions in district court. On May 3, 1984, the Gallanosas sought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring deportation. In a joint motion to dismiss, the parties agreed that the Gallanosas would file an application for suspension of deportation immediately in Oklahoma and that the INS District Director would grant the Gallanosas a six month stay of deportation. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice on May 22, 1984, citing the parties' agreement. Gallanosa v. Chandler, No. 84-1137-R (W.D.Okla. May 22, 1984). 6 The Gallanosas, however, never filed the required application for suspension. On February 11, 1985, eight days before they were directed to report for deportation, the Gallanosas filed their second motion to reopen with a suspension application in Dallas (Dallas II). The following day, the Gallanosas filed their second action in district court requesting injunctive relief, this time in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It is this action that is the subject of the present appeal. The Gallanosas alleged jurisdiction based upon the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1329, and 5 U.S.C. Secs. 701-706. 3 In response, the Virginia INS office agreed to stay the deportation until a preliminary injunction hearing in March 1985. 7 Before that hearing, however, the immigration judge in the Dallas II proceeding denied the Gallanosas' February 11, 1985, motion to reopen on the ground that they were statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(f). The Gallanosas appealed this Dallas II denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals and that appeal is still pending. 8 Two days after the Dallas II denial of the motion to reopen, the district court in the instant action held a hearing on the Gallanosas' application for preliminary injunctive relief. The court also heard the motion of the INS to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and statutory ineligibility for the ultimate relief sought, suspension of deportation. 9 The district court in the instant action entered the requested injunction on April 5, 1985, conditioned upon the Gallanosas' filing of a suspension application. Gallanosa v. United States, No. 85-119-N (E.D.Va. April 5, 1985). The court found jurisdiction, despite the Gallanosas' failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to stay the proceedings so as to allow plaintiffs to file for a suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254, which the Oklahoma federal district court has already authorized. The court noted that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust should not result in forfeiture of their previously granted right to file for suspension of deportation. The district court, however, went beyond the grant of a preliminary injunction and concluded that the Gallanosas had established a prima facie case warranting a reopening of suspension for deportation. Accordingly, the court ordered the INS to conduct a thorough review of the plaintiffs' application for suspension. 4 10 The INS then moved for reconsideration of this order on the grounds that the court was mistaken in concluding that the Gallanosas had not applied for suspension of deportation. The government pointed to the Dallas II proceeding in which the immigration judge had denied the Gallanosas' motion to reopen with suspension application on March 11, 1985. Moreover, the government noted that appeal of that denial was then pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The government also renewed its contention concerning failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 11 While this motion for reconsideration was pending, on April 15, 1985, the Gallanosas filed their third motion to reopen and their second suspension application with an immigration judge in Dallas (Dallas III). That motion is still pending so far as we are aware. 12 On April 26, 1985, the district court in this case denied the government's motion for reconsideration of its injunctive order. In the order denying reconsideration, the court noted its awareness that the Gallanosas had, indeed, filed an application for suspension on February 12, 1985 (Dallas II). Gallanosa v. United States, No. 85-119-N (E.D.Va. April 26, 1985). The court explained that we did not hold plaintiffs' February 12 motion against them because it is evident that this application was hastily filed and, more importantly, cursorily denied by the INS without a thorough review. The court then reaffirmed its injunctive decree and ordered the INS to go beyond their previous summary holding that plaintiffs are barred from relief by 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(f)(2), and to develop a full record on the evidence of plaintiffs' case. 13 This appeal followed.