Cambranis v. Pompeo, 994 F.3d 457

Cambranis alleges he was born in Del Rio, Texas in 1979 but a Mexican birth record initially listed Ciudad Acuña; a delayed Texas birth certificate was filed in 1981.
He submitted six U.S. passport applications (2009–2017); all were denied by the State Department, which cited insufficient proof of U.S. nationality and the Mexican record.
He sued in 2019 seeking a declaration of U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a); his amended complaint added an APA claim and a Fourteenth Amendment-based constitutional claim.
The Government moved to dismiss: (a) §1503(a) claim as time-barred under the five‑year limitation (Gonzalez v. Limon); (b) APA claim as precluded by §704 because §1503(a) provides an adequate remedy (Flores v. Pompeo); and (c) constitutional claim as outside §702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
The district court dismissed all claims, extending Flores to bar the constitutional claim under §704; it did not resolve §702’s sovereign immunity exception.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that §702’s waiver does not apply because §1503(a) is the exclusive remedy and its statute-of-limitations bars relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §702 waive sovereign immunity for Cambranis’s constitutional claim?	§702 waives immunity and permits his constitutional challenge to the passport denial.	§702’s "any other statute" proviso preserves immunity because §1503(a) expressly forbids the relief (limitations ran).	No waiver; §702’s waiver is cut off by §1503(a) as the exclusive remedy.
Is §1503(a) the statute that addresses the same grievance and an exclusive remedy?	§1503(a) is inapplicable here because DOS only found "insufficient proof," not an affirmative finding of non‑nationality.	§1503(a) addresses this grievance and is a precisely drawn, exclusive remedial scheme.	§1503(a) is the exclusive remedy for persons in the U.S. denied rights as non‑nationals.
May Cambranis rely on a novel interpretation of DOS denials (insufficient proof vs finding non‑nationality)?	He argues (on appeal) denials were only for insufficient proof, so §1503(a) doesn't apply.	Argument was waived because he took the opposite position in district court and pleadings.	Waived—court refuses to consider the new, contrary theory on appeal.
Is §704 an independent jurisdictional bar to the constitutional claim?	§704 does not bar constitutional review.	District court held §704 barred the claim.	Court did not decide §704; affirmed based on §702/§1503(a) interaction instead.

Gonzalez v. Limon, 926 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2019) (§1503(a) limitations runs from first final administrative denial)
Flores v. Pompeo, 936 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2019) (APA review barred where §1503(a) provides adequate remedy)
Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) (detailed statutory remedial scheme preempts general remedies)
Match‑E‑Be‑Nash‑She‑Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012) (APA waiver cannot be used to evade specific statutory limits)
Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367 (1962) (subsections (b) and (c) of §1503 not exclusive; distinguished)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (APA does not independently confer subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Alabama‑Coushatta Tribe of Tex. v. United States, 757 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements for §702 waiver of sovereign immunity)