Juan Sandoval Lopez v. Mike Pompeo, Secretary, et, 923 F.3d 444

Background

Juan Gerardo Sandoval Lopez twice sued under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) seeking a judicial declaration of U.S. citizenship after passport denials.
Lopez’s father obtained a U.S. passport in 1991 using a false Texas birth certificate; immigration proceedings in 1997 found the family were Mexican nationals and issued removal orders in absentia.
In 1998 Lopez reentered the U.S. using another false Texas birth certificate and was removed under an expedited order.
In 2016 the State Department denied Lopez’s passport application; he sued under § 1503(a). The district court dismissed, concluding his citizenship claim had been previously resolved in the 1997/1998 removal proceedings.
This court affirmed the first dismissal but on different grounds: Lopez was not “within the United States” when he filed (so §1503(a) jurisdiction failed). Lopez later returned to the U.S. and filed a second §1503(a) suit; the district court dismissed again on res judicata grounds.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the second dismissal, holding the appellate decision’s ground (lack of §1503(a) jurisdiction because Lopez was not within the U.S.) does not preclude relitigation once that jurisdictional defect is cured.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Lopez’s second §1503(a) suit	Lopez: prior appeal dismissed for lack of §1503(a) jurisdiction (he was not within the U.S.), so claim may be relitigated after cure	Government: district court’s prior dismissal concluded citizenship was already resolved in removal proceedings, so claim precluded	Reversed: appellate affirmance on a different (jurisdictional) ground does not preclude a new suit after the jurisdictional defect is cured
Whether §1503(a) requires plaintiff to be “within the United States” when suit is filed	Lopez: he now is within the U.S., curing prior jurisdictional defect	Government: previously argued §1503(a) exceptions bar suits that arise from removal proceedings regardless	Held (as to prior appeal): this court previously held plaintiff must be within the U.S.; here that defect was cured so res judicata cannot stand
Whether §1503(a) exceptions bar suits that arise from terminated (old) removal proceedings	Lopez: Rios-Valenzuela suggests §1503(a) exception covers only pending removal proceedings, so terminated proceedings do not bar later claims	Government: contends the statute’s text could reach claims that arose in terminated proceedings (or may dispute Rios-Valenzuela)	Not finally decided here; concurrence urges district court to consider whether §1503(a) bars claims arising from long-terminated proceedings on remand
Whether Lopez is collaterally estopped from contesting that his citizenship was decided in 1997 removal proceedings	Lopez: disputes district court’s account, contends citizenship may not have been adjudicated in 1997	Government: asserts collateral estoppel and points to 1998 removal as well	Court: did not resolve; remanded so Lopez may raise the factual/estoppel dispute and government may respond

Key Cases Cited

Dow Chem. v. EPA, 832 F.2d 319 (5th Cir.) (appellate affirmance on one ground does not preclude relitigation of issues the appellate court omitted)
Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 74 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissals for lack of jurisdiction ordinarily do not preclude later litigation once defect is corrected)
Blanchard 1986, Ltd. v. Park Plantation, LLC, 553 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2008) (noting dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not adjudications on the merits)
Rios-Valenzuela v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 506 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007) (interpreting §1503(a) exception as not forever barring claims that arose in terminated removal proceedings)
Ortega v. Holder, 592 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Rios-Valenzuela and applying similar reading of §1503(a) exceptions)
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) (noting the high stakes in citizenship determinations and liberty interest in citizenship)