168 F. Supp. 3d 50
D.D.C.2016Background
- Armando Garcia, a Cuban national, had an I-485A (adjustment of status) filed for him in 1981 when he was a minor; his family never received notice of any adjudication.
- Garcia filed a second I-485A in 1990 as an adult; INS adjusted his status (record reflects an adjustment retroactive to Jan. 1, 1982), but he was later convicted of cocaine distribution in 1991 and found deportable in 1996 after admitting the allegations in the Order to Show Cause.
- At his deportation proceeding an IJ denied Garcia a discretionary §212(c) waiver because the IJ found his adjustment was procured by fraud/willful misrepresentation; removal was ordered but not executed due to his Cuban citizenship, and he has remained under an order of supervision since 1998.
- In 2013 Garcia submitted a FOIA request for his Alien File (A-File); USCIS produced 419 pages (many released, some referred to other agencies, some redacted/withheld). The produced A-File included the 1981 I-485A but no adjudication record.
- Garcia sued under FOIA (alleging inadequate search) and alternatively sought mandamus/APA/INA relief compelling USCIS to adjudicate the 1981 application nunc pro tunc so he could (he contends) be in a position to seek a §212(c) waiver predating his criminal conduct.
- The government moved for summary judgment on the FOIA claim and to dismiss the adjudication claims; the Court held USCIS’s FOIA search adequate and dismissed the adjudication claims for lack of standing and because the requested equitable nunc pro tunc relief was unavailable and inequitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of USCIS FOIA search | USCIS failed to locate/produce records showing disposition of 1981 I-485A; OGIS’s letter suggests documents missing | USCIS located and produced the A-File after NFTS search, explained scanning/digitization limits, provided Vaughn index; OGIS has no independent enforcement power | USCIS conducted an adequate search; summary judgment for Defendants on FOIA claim |
| Standing to compel adjudication of 1981 I-485A | Delay in adjudicating 1981 application caused present injury because timely adjudication would have allowed LPR status before criminal conduct and eligibility for §212(c) waiver | Any relief is speculative: (1) 1990 application was adjudicated and retroactively applied, (2) adjustment and waiver decisions are discretionary and unreviewable, (3) redress would require extraordinary retroactive relief | Garcia lacks Article III standing because redressability is speculative; dismissal granted |
| Availability of nunc pro tunc relief to recreate 1981 adjudication | Court can and should order nunc pro tunc adjudication so Garcia can pursue now-analogous relief under 1981 law | Nunc pro tunc is extraordinary, courts’ authority limited; even if available, relief would not guarantee complete disposition and conflicts with present eligibility rules | Court doubtful it has power to grant such broad nunc pro tunc relief; even if available, equities and legal changes counsel against it |
| Entitlement to mandamus/APA relief to compel adjudication | USCIS has an ongoing duty to adjudicate applications and unreasonably delayed action actionable under APA/mandamus | Judicial review and compulsion limited: adjustment and discretionary relief are largely nonreviewable; statutory/regulatory eligibility must be assessed at time of adjudication | Court did not reach merits because standing (and redressability) failed; dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago v. Holder, [citation="312 F. App'x 867"] (9th Cir.) (observing complexity of immigration laws)
- Matter of Lok, 18 I. & N. Dec. 101 (BIA) (lawful permanent resident status terminates on final deportation order)
- Rivera v. I.N.S., 810 F.2d 540 (5th Cir.) (discussing termination of LPR status upon deportation order)
- United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir.) (same principle on LPR termination)
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA places burden on agency and courts decide de novo)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir.) (search adequacy standard in FOIA cases)
- Valencia-Lucena v. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir.) (agency affidavits may suffice in FOIA if detailed and uncontroverted)