Ernst Zundel v. Eric Holder, Jr., 687 F.3d 271

Ernst Zundel, a German citizen, entered the U.S. in 2000 under the VWPP and later sought permanent resident status based on marriage to Ingrid Zundel, a U.S. citizen.
Zundel failed to appear for his scheduled 2001 adjustment hearing; INS denied his application in January 2002 and deported him in February 2003.
Upon deportation, Zundel received a two-decade inadmissibility bar (20 years) for unlawful presence and potential reentry penalties.
The Zundels pursued habeas, mandamus, APA relief, and a Bivens claim; the district court dismissed various claims as to jurisdiction and timeliness.
On appeal, this court previously held that Zundel waived rights under the VWPP by entering again within the waiver period and denied review of removal, and later proceedings addressed narrow challenges to the VWPP waiver and ripe-ness of the inadmissibility bar.
The current decision affirms dismissal of remaining claims, including Bivens claims and mandamus, for lack of ripe, timely, or properly styled relief and for jurisdictional and limitations reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether VWPP waiver governs last entry and bars review of removal	Zundel contends VWPP entry doesn’t control last entry or waiver scope.	VWPP waiver governs, foreclosing challenge to removal.	VWPP waiver controls; challenge deemed not reviewable.
Whether the twenty-year inadmissibility bar is ripe for review	Zundel seeks review of the consecutive ten-year bars and their application.	Bar is an administrative notice with no current legal effect; not ripe.	Not ripe for review; notice has no present legal effect to review.
Whether Mrs. Zundel can pursue a Bivens claim for loss of consortium	Mrs. Zundel seeks damages for loss of companionship from deportation.	No cognizable Bivens right to such damages; rights limited and disputed.	Bivens claim for consortium not cognizable; rejected.
Whether Zundel’s proposed Bivens claim against federal officials is time-barred	Zundel asserts federal officials’ misconduct within limitations period.	One-year Tennessee limitations apply; claim untimely.	Claim time-barred; cannot relate back to earlier pleadings.
Whether the district court erred in denying amendment to add a Bivens claim against Ashcroft/Ridge	Amendment should relate back and overcome time limits.	Amendment would be futile and time-barred; improper	Amendment denied; untimely and procedurally improper.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 () (liberty interest in marriage)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 () (right to marital privacy; consortium context)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 () (right to marriage, limits on conjugal rights)
Niehus v. Liberio, 973 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1992) (limits of right to consortium; not unlimited)
Fernandez-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (notice with penalties; lacks immediate legal effect)
Miranda-Ramirez, 309 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2002) (notice from deportation procedures; review limits)
Mendez-Casillas, 272 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2001) (allocation of review under removals; notices)
Cruz-Flores, 56 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 1995) (treated notices; not grounds for sentencing impact)
Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (appropriate grounds for affirming on alternative basis)
Zundel v. Berrong, 106 F. App’x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) (prior appeal on removal review; VWPP waiver context)