568 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2021Background
- Felix Ramon Bautista‑Rosario, a Dominican Republic senator, and several family members were publicly designated in June 2018 under Section 7031(c) as ineligible for U.S. entry for "significant corruption." The Treasury Department also sanctioned Bautista‑Rosario under Executive Order 13818 the same day.
- Plaintiffs (none alleging U.S. citizenship; some claim past U.S. visits or property ownership) sued, bringing four claims solely against the State Department (Counts I–IV) and additional claims against Treasury.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Counts I–IV for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The court dismissed Counts I–IV without prejudice: Count I (APA/administrative review) found nonjusticiable; Count II (Fifth Amendment) failed because plaintiffs lack sufficient U.S. ties and cognizable liberty/property interests; Count III (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)) failed because no review procedure exists and plaintiffs conceded the point; Count IV (statutory reporting obligations under §7031) failed because the report was published (judicially noticed) and plaintiffs conceded lack of a viable claim or injury.
- The opinion rests on principles of consular/immigration nonreviewability and limits on constitutional protections for nonresident aliens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count I: APA review of Section 7031(c) designation | Section 7031(c) designations are federal agency action reviewable under the APA as arbitrary and capricious | Immigration exclusion decisions (and similar visa/entry determinations) are presumptively nonreviewable; APA is displaced or precluded here | Dismissed: nonjusticiable; APA review precluded by immigration statutory scheme and political‑branch control over admission/exclusion |
| Count II: Fifth Amendment due process | State failed to provide adequate notice/process of designation | Plaintiffs are nonresident aliens without sufficient U.S. contacts and thus lack Fifth Amendment protections; no protected liberty/property interest in entry | Dismissed: plaintiffs lack constitutional standing/contacts; no cognizable liberty/property interest |
| Count III: 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(1) (publication of procedures) | State failed to identify procedures for challenging designation as required by FOIA/section 552 | No formal or informal reconsideration procedure exists to publish; thus no violation | Dismissed (conceded): no procedure exists to publicize; plaintiffs conceded defendants' arguments |
| Count IV: Section 7031(c)(4)–(6) reporting obligations | State failed to submit/post required report to Congress and public | State did publish the report; plaintiffs lack a statutory cause of action or cognizable injury | Dismissed (conceded): court took judicial notice of published report; plaintiffs conceded lack of viable claim or injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (political‑branch control over admission and exclusion of aliens)
- Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (courts ordinarily may not review exclusion determinations)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (deference to political branches on immigration policy)
- Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) (immigration decisions implicate foreign relations and political questions)
- Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) (limits on judicial review of visa denials tied to national sovereignty)
- Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (statutory scheme can preclude APA review)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (immigration laws infer preclusion of APA review for consular visa decisions)
- Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (constitutional protections depend on substantial U.S. connections)
- Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (nonresident aliens with insufficient U.S. contacts lack Fifth Amendment protections)
- Rafeedie v. INS, 880 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (initial entrants have no liberty interest in admission)