Raquel Hinojosa v. Petra Horn
896 F.3d 305
5th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Raquel Hinojosa and Denisse Villafranca each claim U.S. birth but have Mexican birth certificates indicating otherwise; both sought judicial relief after passport denial or revocation by the State Department (DOS).
- Hinojosa applied for a passport in 2015; DOS denied her application as insufficient to prove U.S. birth. She filed habeas and APA claims in the S.D. Tex., and was at a U.S. port of entry when she sought relief.
- Villafranca received a passport in 2005; DOS revoked it in 2014 based on a prior Mexican birth certificate and seized the passport when she attempted reentry; DOS informed her she could pursue 8 U.S.C. § 1503 in district court.
- Both district courts dismissed their habeas and APA claims for lack of jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)), concluding § 1503 provides an adequate alternative remedy and that plaintiffs had not exhausted § 1503 procedures.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding § 1503 supplies an adequate remedy precluding APA review and that exhaustion of § 1503(b)–(c) is required before habeas relief; separate statutory and standing arguments were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA review is available for DOS passport denial/revocation | Plaintiffs: APA provides review; §1503 procedures are inadequate or inapplicable | Gov't: APA precluded because 8 U.S.C. §1503 supplies an adequate alternative remedy and specific procedures | Held: APA claims barred; §1503 is an adequate alternative remedy |
| Whether §1503(b)–(c) must be exhausted before habeas | Plaintiffs: §1503 procedures are futile or do not remedy passport deprivation | Gov't: Plaintiffs must exhaust §1503(b)–(c) before habeas; those procedures address citizenship determinations | Held: Exhaustion required; plaintiffs failed to show futility or exception |
| Whether Villafranca could proceed under §1503(a) declaratory action while at port | Villafranca: §1503(a) should allow her to file declaratory judgment | Gov't: §1503(a) applies only to persons within the United States; she was at the border/not "within" U.S. | Held: Dismissed; §1503(a) limited to persons within the U.S.; §1503(b)–(c) applies to those not within the U.S. |
| Hinojosa's as-applied challenge to 8 U.S.C. §1185(b) (passport requirement) | Hinojosa: §1185(b) unconstitutional as applied to citizens denied entry for lack of passport | Gov't: §1185(b) was not applied to her because DOS concluded she was not a citizen; lacks standing | Held: Dismissed for lack of standing — plaintiff did not show statute was applied to her |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (APA review barred where Congress provided an adequate alternative remedy)
- Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367 (1962) (permitted APA challenge to passport denial in narrow circumstances; discussed limits of §1503 procedures)
- Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120 (2012) (alternative remedies are inadequate if petitioners cannot directly invoke them or they are too indirect)
- U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016) (an alternative that imposes serious burdens or is arduous may be inadequate to preclude APA review)
- Samaniego v. Brownell, 212 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1954) (must exhaust §1503 procedures before seeking habeas relief)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (adequacy requires the alternative to offer the same genre of relief and shows congressional intent when it creates agency obligations plus enforcement mechanisms)
- Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Herman, 176 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 1999) (APA finality requirement and adequacy of alternative remedies)