Gonzalez Torres v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
3:17-cv-01840
| S.D. Cal. | Apr 12, 2018Background
- Alberto Gonzalez Torres, a DACA recipient, originally obtained DACA in 2013 and worked lawfully until USCIS terminated his DACA and employment authorization after his May 6, 2016 arrest related to an alleged alien‑smuggling event.
- This court granted a preliminary injunction on September 29, 2017 vacating the first revocation, reinstating DACA and EAD, and directing DHS/USCIS to follow the DACA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) if reconsidering termination.
- After reinstatement, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) in November/December 2017, alleging Plaintiff was an enforcement priority based on suspected involvement in alien smuggling; Plaintiff responded and denied involvement.
- On December 21, 2017 USCIS issued a Termination Notice revoking Plaintiff’s DACA after consultation with ICE; Plaintiff sued claiming (1) APA violations (May 2016 and Dec 2017 revocations), (2) Fifth Amendment procedural‑due‑process violations, and sought declaratory relief.
- Court review focused on whether the second revocation complied with the DACA SOP and applicable law; court found USCIS provided notice, opportunity to respond, consulted with ICE, and articulated a rational connection between facts and the termination decision.
- Result: court dissolved the prior preliminary injunction, denied Plaintiff’s renewed preliminary injunction, and dismissed the FAC with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dec. 2017 revocation complied with DACA SOP / violated APA | Gonzalez: second revocation did not comply with DACA SOP and was arbitrary/capricious | DHS/USCIS: followed SOP, consulted ICE, issued NOIT and Termination Notice explaining basis | Court: Defendants complied with SOP; revocation not arbitrary or capricious (APA claim fails) |
| Whether Plaintiff retained protected DACA status absent criminal conviction | Gonzalez: without a conviction he is not an enforcement priority and should retain DACA protections | DHS: DACA recipients become enforcement priorities based on alleged conduct (e.g., alien smuggling), even absent conviction | Court: Agencies reasonably determined alleged alien‑smuggling conduct made him an enforcement priority; plaintiff’s lack of conviction does not preclude termination |
| Whether Procedural Due Process required more than NOIT + opportunity to respond | Gonzalez: needed greater process (argues for more formal hearing or cross‑examination) | DHS: DACA revocation process affords notice and opportunity to respond; DACA is discretionary and agencies provided required process | Court: Plaintiff has protected interests (EAD and presence) but received adequate process (NOIT, response opportunity, Termination Notice); due‑process claim fails |
| Whether preliminary injunction should remain | Gonzalez: seeks reinstatement pending merits | DHS: complied with prior injunction and properly terminated under SOP; injunction should be dissolved | Court: Dissolved prior injunction; denied new preliminary injunction (no likelihood of success) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1987) (preliminary injunction standards and sliding‑scale test)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm; public interest considered)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards — plausible claim required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 8 pleading requirements and conclusory allegations)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (scope of arbitrary and capricious review under APA)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 418 U.S. 281 (1974) (narrowness of arbitrary and capricious review)
- I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (judicial deference in immigration context)
- Judulang v. Holder, 562 U.S. 42 (2011) (requirement of reasoned decisionmaking by agencies)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for assessing adequate procedural due process)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property/liberty interests trigger due process protections)