HOLLEY v. POMPEO, 3:20-cv-18938

Plaintiff Chiara Daniela Holley, born in Peru (1993), obtained U.S. lawful permanent resident status as a minor and was allegedly ‘‘legitimated’’ by a U.S. citizen (Keith Holley) in 2011; she later abandoned LPR status and returned to the U.S. on a B1/B2 visa in 2019.
Holley applied for a U.S. passport on or about March 12, 2020; the Philadelphia Passport Agency denied the application on October 5, 2020, finding no evidence of adoption/legitimation sufficient to establish U.S. citizenship.
Holley sued on December 14, 2020, asserting claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Mandamus Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), the Fifth Amendment, and EAJA.
The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Holley conceded the Mandamus claim was improper.
The Court held that §1503(a) of the INA provides an adequate judicial remedy precluding APA review of passport-denial citizenship disputes, rejected Holley’s argument that she lacks ‘‘residence’’ for §1503(a), and concluded the DJA supplies no independent jurisdictional basis.
Disposition: APA, DJA, and Mandamus claims dismissed with prejudice; Fifth Amendment and EAJA claims dismissed without prejudice; Holley given 21 days to amend to assert a §1503(a) claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether APA review is available to challenge passport denial	Holley contends APA review is proper for the Agency’s refusal to adjudicate her passport application	Govt argues §1503(a) of the INA provides an adequate alternative remedy, precluding APA jurisdiction	APA claim barred because §1503(a) offers adequate judicial remedy
Whether Holley qualifies as a "resident" for §1503(a) venue and jurisdiction	Holley says she is a non-resident (on B1/B2) and thus cannot invoke §1503(a)	Govt contends Holley resides in New Jersey and may invoke §1503(a)	Court finds INA’s definition of "residence" satisfied by Holley’s pleaded domicile in New Jersey
Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act independently confers jurisdiction	Holley relies on the DJA to obtain relief	Govt contends DJA does not create independent jurisdiction	DJA does not save the APA claim; DJA relief only available alongside a proper statutory jurisdictional basis (e.g., §1503)
Whether Fifth Amendment / EAJA claims can substitute for §1503(a) relief	Holley argues due process violated by wrongful citizenship adjudication; seeks fees under EAJA	Govt argues Fifth Amendment is not an alternative to §1503(a); EAJA depends on success of substantive claims	Court rejects Fifth Amendment as an end-run around §1503(a); EAJA dismissed as dependent on substantive success (dismissed without prejudice)

Hinojosa v. Horn, 896 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2018) (§1503(a) provides adequate judicial path, precluding APA challenge to passport denial)
Xia v. Tillerson, 865 F.3d 643 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (§1503 affords adequate avenue to assert citizenship claims)
Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2016) (DJA does not create independent federal jurisdiction)
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) (DJA does not itself create jurisdiction)
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) (citizenship claim in deportation context implicates due process because deportation presumes noncitizen status)
Dessouki v. Attorney Gen., 915 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 2019) (discussing limits of jurisdiction and constitutional concerns in citizenship/deportation context)
de Rodriguez v. Holder, 724 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2013) (INA’s residence definition interprets "place of general abode" as objective principal dwelling)