459 F.Supp.3d 7
D.D.C.2020Background:
- Plaintiff Amira Gonzalez Boisson alleges she was born in Mexico in 1970 and acquired U.S. citizenship at birth through her mother, Denise, a U.S. citizen who allegedly had at least ten years physical presence in the U.S. (five after age 14) before plaintiff’s birth.
- Gonzalez Boisson was issued a U.S. passport in 2013 based on Denise’s signed statement about her U.S. residence; the State Department revoked the passport in 2019 after discovering an inconsistency in Denise’s 2003 passport application about her 1950s residence.
- The revocation letter cited 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2), identified the inconsistent documents, and informed plaintiff of a right to request a hearing within 60 days and to reapply with additional evidence.
- Plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (seeking a declaration of U.S. citizenship) and under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (challenging pre- and post-revocation procedures); the government moved to dismiss.
- The court denied dismissal of the APA claim (holding § 1503(b)/(c) do not bar APA review) and granted dismissal of the Due Process claim (finding the revocation letter plus opportunity for a prompt post-revocation hearing satisfied due process).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1503(b)/(c) provide an adequate alternative remedy that bars APA review of passport revocation | Gonzalez Boisson: §1503 procedures are inadequate and burdensome for an out-of-country claimant; APA review remains available | Pompeo: §1503(b)/(c) create an adequate remedial path (certificate of identity, admission, then §1503(a) suit), so APA review is foreclosed | Court: §1503(b)/(c) are not an adequate alternative; APA claim may proceed (Cort controls) |
| Whether passport revocation procedures violated procedural due process (pre- and post-revocation) | Gonzalez Boisson: she had no meaningful notice or chance to respond pre-revocation; post-revocation procedures are unfair (limited discovery, foreign hearing, non‑neutral arbiter) | Pompeo: revocation letter stated reasons and offered a prompt hearing under regulation; postrevocation rules provide sufficient protections under Mathews v. Eldridge | Court: No due process violation; pre-revocation hearing not required (Haig); provided statement of reasons and prompt postrevocation hearing adequate under Mathews |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court 1962) (persons abroad denied citizenship not confined to §1503 procedures; APA review available)
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (Supreme Court 1977) (APA is not an independent grant of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 1981) (Constitution does not require a prerevocation hearing for passport revocation; statement of reasons and prompt postrevocation hearing suffice)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1976) (three-factor test for what process is due)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (Supreme Court 1988) (§704 reflects Congress’s intent to avoid duplicative review where special remedies exist)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court 1967) (APA should receive a "hospitable interpretation")
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (clear-and-convincing legislative intent required to displace APA review)
- Hinojosa v. Horn, 896 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2018) (panel held §1503 adequate — cited by government; court disagreed)
- Chacoty v. Pompeo, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019) (concluded Cort controls and §1503 does not bar APA review)