Mashiri v. Department of Education
724 F.3d 1028
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mashiri sought a Stafford Loan and sued the DOE for mandamus to compel loan issuance.
- He immigrated to the U.S. and pursued asylum, filing a derivative asylum application based on his mother’s status.
- During proceedings, Mashiri worked, graduated from UCSD, and applied to TJSL for law school financing.
- TJSL denied federal aid; Mashiri private-loaned for first-year tuition while pursuing government aid.
- District court dismissed petition; Mashiri appealed arguing FFELP eligibility, raising jurisdiction and merits questions.
- The court amended the opinion to address Mashiri’s eligibility under FFELP, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1082(a)(2) provides jurisdiction | Mashiri relies on the sue-and-be-sued clause for FFELP. | Anti-injunction clause prevents jurisdiction for this declaratory/mandamus relief. | No jurisdiction under §1082(a)(2) due to anti-injunction clause. |
| Whether the Larson-Dugan exception applies | Petition challenges the FFELP’s statutory limits; actions are ultra vires and suitable for mandamus. | Sovereign immunity bars mandamus unless Larson-Dugan exception applies. | Larson-Dugan exception applies; merits merge with jurisdiction analysis. |
| Whether Mashiri is eligible for FFELP loans | Mashiri contends he is eligible under federal statutes. | Mashiri lacks non-temporary status under 20 U.S.C. §1091(a)(5) and fails 8 U.S.C. §1611 eligibility. | Mashiri not eligible under §1611 or §1091(a)(5); petition merits denied. |
| Whether the evidence shows non-temporary status supporting §1091(a)(5) | Documents show asylum-related status could satisfy non-temporary purpose. | Evidence does not show Mashiri’s non-temporary status or conferred status. | Documents fail to establish non-temporary purpose; evidence inadequate. |
| Whether Mashiri properly raised asylum evidence on appeal | Mashiri raised asylum-status arguments at least in part on appeal. | New arguments on appeal are generally not considered. | The court did not address new asylum-eligibility arguments raised for the first time on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartels v. Alabama Commercial College, Inc., 54 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 1995) (bars jurisdiction under §1082(a)(2) when analogous)
- American National Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1992) (supreme authority on related sovereign-immunity/related limits)
- Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Larson-Dugan implications for waivers of sovereign immunity)
- American Ass’n of Cosmetology Schs. v. Riley, 170 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1999) (anti-injunction limitations in declaratory relief suits against Secretary)
- Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1976) (jurisdictional considerations in mandamus)
- Guevara v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (documents and non-temporary status considerations under INA)
- Garcia v. Holder, 659 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2011) (non-temporary purpose and immigration-status evidence standards)
- Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (evidence of status affecting eligibility for benefits)
- United States v. Bazargan, 992 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1993) (statutory eligibility and residency status considerations)