No. 18-461

Raquel Hinojosa, et al. v. Petra Horn, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: administrative-exhaustion administrative-procedure-act citizenship-claim due-process immigration judicial-review passport passport-denial rusk-v-cort standing
Latest Conference: 2019-03-15 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) preempts judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the denial or revocation of a passport for a United States citizenship claimant abroad, notwithstanding that this construction was explicitly rejected by Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. at 379.

Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) provides an adequate remedy within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §704, even though, as the dissenting Judge noted, citing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S.Ct. 1807,1815 (2016), it would entail an "arduous, expensive, and long" process, because under §1503(c), Petitioners would be treated as "aliens seeking admission," thus triggering lengthy administrative detention and other harsh consequences imposed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), on such persons.

Whether §1503(c)'s requirement that Petitioners be treated as "aliens seeking admission" is inconsistent with the fact that both have facially valid Texas birth certificates, but the conditions imposed by IIRIRA on "aliens seeking admission" eliminate the Due Process protections at the border to which this documentation would entitle them under Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129-130 (1958), and Hernandez v. Cremer, 913 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1990).

Whether, as suggested in Rusk v. Cort, and reiterated in Sackett v. E.P.A., 566 U.S. 120, 127 (2012), a remedy which may be sought from a different agency than the one whose action is challenged is not an adequate alternative to APA review for purposes of 5 U.S.C. §704, such that the procedures imposed by 8 U.S.C. §1503(c), which are conducted by the Department of Justice, do not provide an adequate remedy for the actions of the Department of State, denying and revoking Petitioners' U.S. passports.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 8 U.S.C. §§1503(b)-(c) preempts judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the denial or revocation of a passport for a United States citizenship claimant abroad, notwithstanding that this construction was explicitly rejected by Rusk v. Cort

Docket Entries

2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-02-13
Reply of petitioners Raquel Hinojosa, et al. filed.
2019-02-01
Brief of respondents Petra Horn, et al. in opposition filed.
2018-12-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 1, 2019.
2018-12-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 2, 2019 to February 1, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-03
Response Requested. (Due January 2, 2019)
2018-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-13
Waiver of right of respondent Petra Horn, et al. to respond filed.
2018-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2018)

Attorneys

Petra Horn, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Raquel Hinojosa, et al.
Elisabeth (Lisa) S. BrodyagaRefugio Del Rio Grande, Petitioner