Javier Flores v. Mike Pompeo, 936 F.3d 273

Background

Javier Flores has a U.S. birth certificate showing birth in McAllen, Texas (1962) but also was registered in Mexico by his parents.
In 2015 the State Department revoked Flores’s passport and denied renewal; he sued for a declaration of U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and for APA relief.
Section 1503(a) requires suits to be filed in the federal district where the plaintiff "resides or claims a residence." The parties disputed whether Flores resided in the Southern District of Texas or in Emporia, Kansas.
Evidence for Kansas: Flores changed his address in 2015 to Emporia, worked at Emporia university, purchased a home there in 2016, and taught on-campus in 2018. Evidence for Texas: Flores produced leases and credit-card charges showing physical presence in McAllen/Edinburg from May–Dec 2017.
The district court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), concluding Flores had not met his burden to prove residence in the Southern District of Texas; it also declined APA jurisdiction because § 1503(a) provides an adequate alternative remedy.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no clear error in the district court’s factual finding on residence and holding § 1503(a) displaced APA review for Flores’s claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1503(a) (residency in Southern District of Texas)	Flores argued he resided in the Southern District during May–Dec 2017 (leases, credit-card records) and thus could file under § 1503(a) there	Government argued Flores resided in Kansas (Emporia): changed address, employment, purchased home, taught there, so Texas court lacked jurisdiction	Held: Affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; district court’s factual finding that Flores failed to prove Texas residence was not clearly erroneous
Whether § 1503(a)’s residence requirement is jurisdictional or venue	Flores impliedly contested strict jurisdictional bar	Government argued the requirement is jurisdictional and limits where suit may be filed	Held: Court concluded § 1503(a)’s residence requirement is jurisdictional (Congress "conferred" jurisdiction on courts of the district where person resides)
Whether Flores’s APA claim is reviewable despite § 1503(a) remedy	Flores sought APA relief challenging passport revocation/denial	Government argued APA review is precluded because § 1503(a) provides an adequate alternative remedy	Held: APA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; § 1503(a) is an adequate alternative remedy (citing Hinojosa)
Whether district court abused discretion by not holding evidentiary hearing or ordering additional discovery	Flores argued court should have held hearing or ordered discovery to resolve residence dispute	Government relied on submitted papers and evidence	Held: No abuse of discretion; Flores had opportunity to present evidence and could have requested a hearing; court could resolve 12(b)(1) on submitted evidence

Key Cases Cited

Musselwhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)
Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.) (district court may weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes on jurisdiction)
Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F.3d 147 (5th Cir.) (same)
Robinson v. TCI/US W. Commc’ns Inc., 117 F.3d 900 (5th Cir.) (methods for resolving 12(b)(1) motions: complaint alone, complaint + undisputed facts, or plus resolution of disputed facts)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S.) (clear error standard for factual findings)
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. 333 U.S. 364 (U.S.) (context for clear-error discussion)
Hinojosa v. Horn, 896 F.3d 305 (5th Cir.) (holding § 1503(b)–(c) provides adequate remedy for nonresidents; § 1503(a) gives judicial review to those within U.S.)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (when statutory limitations are jurisdictional)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S.) (how to determine whether a statutory condition is jurisdictional)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385 (U.S.) (jurisdictional analysis tools)
FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (U.S.) (statutory terms need not be construed identically across provisions)
Gonzalez v. Holder, 771 F.3d 238 (5th Cir.) (addressed interpretation of "resides permanently")
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.) (standards for evidentiary hearing and jurisdictional discovery)