Lihong Xia v. Kerry
145 F. Supp. 3d 68
D.D.C.2015Background
- Four plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State and the Secretary of DHS alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983), various Immigration and Nationality Act provisions, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit was filed in January 2014.
- The Court sua sponte dismissed the original complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims: lack of administrative exhaustion by three plaintiffs, vagueness of the due-process allegations, misapplication of CRA § 1981/§ 1983 to federal actors, and insufficient APA/INA pleading.
- The Court told plaintiffs they could seek leave to amend and specifically noted § 1503 of the INA as an available remedy for Xia, who had exhausted administrative remedies.
- Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint that reasserted prior claims, added an INA § 1447 claim, and invoked INA § 1503 for Xia. Defendants opposed, arguing the amended complaint repeated defects and that venue for Xia's § 1503 claim is improper in D.C.
- The Court reviewed Rule 15 standards and venue rules, including § 1503(a)’s specific venue requirement (district where plaintiff resides at filing), and concluded the proposed amendments would be futile and that Xia's § 1503 claim must be brought in New Jersey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15 | Plaintiffs sought leave to cure pleading defects and add INA claims including § 1503 | Defendants argued amendments repeat prior defects and would be futile | Denied: amendment would be futile; leave to amend denied |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies | Plaintiffs alleged exhaustion or futility but did not explain failure to appeal for three plaintiffs | Defendants asserted three plaintiffs failed to administratively exhaust | Denied relief for those plaintiffs: majority failed to show exhaustion or futility |
| Whether Fifth Amendment due-process claims were adequately pleaded | Plaintiffs alleged denial of due process (hearings, passports, certificates) | Defendants argued pleadings were vague and did not specify required procedures | Court held due-process claims vague and would not survive dismissal |
| Proper venue for Xia's INA § 1503 claim | Plaintiffs asserted Xia could proceed under § 1503 in D.C. | Defendants argued Xia resides in New Jersey so § 1503 venue is New Jersey | Dismissal of § 1503 in D.C.; court instructed Xia to file in District of New Jersey if she desires |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (grounds to deny leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, failure to cure, or futility)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (standard that leave to amend should be freely given unless there is sufficient reason to deny)
- James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (amendment is futile if proposed claim would not survive a motion to dismiss)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (requirements for alleging what process is due under the Fifth Amendment)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (discussing transfer vs. dismissal when venue is improper)
- Roman-Salgado v. Holder, 730 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2010) (§ 1503 venue provision controls over general venue rules)
- Frank v. Brownell, 149 F. Supp. 928 (D.D.C. 1957) (discussing exclusivity of § 1503 venue provision)