455 F.Supp.3d 7
E.D.N.Y.2020Background:
- Petitioner Dr. Joseph Raia sued under mandamus on Feb 27, 2020 seeking to compel the U.S. State Department to issue a U.S. passport for his minor son A.R., who was taken to Italy by his mother in Jan 2019.
- Raia filed a Hague Convention return application (initiated Jan 29, 2019) that was not transmitted to the Italian Central Authority until Dec 27, 2019; no Italian decision was imminent at the hearing.
- On Oct 15, 2019 Raia submitted a “lost/stolen” passport form for A.R., which led the child’s valid U.S. passport to be electronically cancelled; the State Department later told Raia the passport application lacked compliant photos, the child’s in-person appearance, and required parental signatures or a court order.
- A New York State Supreme Court judge on Dec 6, 2019 ordered Raia to have physical custody pending the child’s appearance and stated Raia shall be issued a passport even though the child was not present; the State Department nevertheless declined to issue the passport without meeting its requirements.
- Raia contended immediate issuance was necessary because A.R. has a congenital heart condition and, given COVID-19 in Italy, faces imminent risk; Raia also said he plans to await a favorable Hague decision before retrieving A.R.
- The district court denied Raia’s motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction (oral ruling Mar 13, 2020; written order Apr 21, 2020), finding Raia failed to show irreparable harm remedied by passport issuance, failed to meet mandamus prerequisites, and that public-interest and fraud-prevention concerns counseled against relief.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm from COVID-19 and medical risk | Raia: A.R.’s congenital heart condition + COVID-19 risk in Italy creates imminent, irreparable danger unless passport issued now | State: Issuing a passport does not give Raia custody or immediate access to A.R.; relief would not avert the asserted harm | Court: Harm is real but issuance of passport to Raia would not remedy it because Raia lacks access to the child; irreparable-harm element not met |
| Entitlement to mandamus to compel passport | Raia: Government must issue passport once criteria met; mandamus is appropriate to compel issuance now | State: Passport issuance is discretionary and regulations/requirements (photo, in-person appearance) are unmet; mandamus unavailable to direct discretionary judgments | Court: Mandamus is extraordinary; Raia did not show a clear, nondiscretionary right to issuance and cannot meet mandamus prerequisites |
| Compliance with passport regulations (in-person and photo requirements) | Raia: Requirements should be waived due to medical emergency and abduction context; NY state order suffices | State: Regulations require in-person appearance and a recent photograph; limited waivers exist but do not dispense with photo requirement; NY order does not override federal requirements | Court: Raia failed to satisfy requirements (photo and in-person) and has not shown entitlement to waiver; absence of compliant photo defeats likelihood of success |
| Public interest and risk of interference with foreign Hague proceedings | Raia: Public interest favors return for medical care; government interests are outweighed by risk to A.R. | State: Requirements prevent fraud and international abduction; issuing passport could interfere with Hague process and encourage circumvention | Court: Public interest favors refusing injunction—fraud prevention, procedural regularity, and non-interference with Hague proceedings weigh against relief |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) (standard for preliminary injunctions and higher bar for mandatory injunctions)
- Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is the most important prerequisite for preliminary injunction)
- Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2004) (speculative inferences cannot support prospective injunctive relief)
- Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105 (1988) (mandamus issues only to compel clear nondiscretionary duties)
- Anderson v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1989) (prerequisites for mandamus relief)
- Alsaidi v. United States Dep’t of State, 292 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D.D.C. 2018) (passport issuance is not mandatory simply because applicant is a citizen)
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020) (treats the concept of “habitual residence” in Hague Convention contexts)