Carlos Sandoval v. Rex Tillerson, Secretary, U.S.
713 F. App'x 255
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lopez, born in Mexico, claims derivative U.S. citizenship through his father Carlos Sandoval under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g); Sandoval’s own citizenship was disputed and removal proceedings had been initiated against him and Lopez in the 1990s.
- Lopez was ordered removed in absentia in the 1990s and later presented a false U.S. birth certificate at the border in 1998 and was removed; he voluntarily returned to Mexico.
- In 2016 Lopez applied for a U.S. passport claiming derivative citizenship; the State Department denied the passport for insufficient proof of Sandoval’s U.S. citizenship.
- Lopez sued in district court seeking (1) habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for denial of the passport (due process), (2) APA review and a declaration that he and Sandoval are U.S. citizens, and (3) a declaratory judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a); the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Lopez’s § 1503(a) filing failed the statute’s “within the United States” requirement (he filed at a port of entry), and that jurisdiction for APA and habeas claims was precluded by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 as amended by the REAL ID Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez satisfied § 1503(a)’s requirement to be "within the United States" when filing | Lopez contends filing at the port of entry suffices to bring a § 1503(a) action | Government contends port-of-entry filing does not make plaintiff "within the United States" and § 1503(b) covers those outside the U.S. | Court held port-of-entry filing does not satisfy § 1503(a); dismissal proper |
| Whether APA review or habeas under § 2241 is available to challenge denial of passport/citizenship | Lopez sought APA and habeas review of passport denial and alleged due-process violation | Government invoked REAL ID Act/§ 1252(b)(9), arguing exclusive review of removal-related claims is through § 1252 petition-for-review procedure | Court held REAL ID Act § 1252 bars habeas and other review of claims arising from removal proceedings; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether REAL ID Act applies retroactively to Lopez’s claims | Lopez argued citizenship claim requires court determination before applying § 1252 exhaustion rules (invoking Omolo) | Government argued REAL ID Act applies retroactively to bar collateral habeas/APA review of removal-related claims | Court applied REAL ID Act retroactively and found § 1252 route is the sole review; did not resolve Omolo-based citizenship-first argument as Lopez did not pursue petition for review |
| Whether Lopez was "in custody" for habeas corpus purposes | Lopez asserted habeas relief was available (implying custody) | Government disputed custody and argued § 1252 bars habeas regardless | Court declined to reach custody question because habeas jurisdiction was precluded by § 1252 |
Key Cases Cited
- Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 858 F.3d 980 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
- Moss v. Harris Cty. Constable Precinct One, 851 F.3d 413 (5th Cir.) (affirmance may be upheld on any grounds supported by the record)
- United States v. Real Property, 123 F.3d 312 (5th Cir.) (courts may affirm on any correct ground)
- Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 426 F.3d 733 (5th Cir.) (REAL ID Act applies retroactively)
- Qureshi v. Holder, 663 F.3d 778 (5th Cir.) (APA relief requires final agency action and lack of adequate alternative remedies)
- Zolicoffer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 315 F.3d 538 (5th Cir.) (discussing custody requirement for habeas relief)
- Omolo v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 404 (5th Cir.) (addresses timing of citizenship determination vs. § 1252 exhaustion)