Beltran Carrero v. Barr

Background

Yelitsa Eleonora Beltran Carrero, her minor daughter S. C., and Marco Silveira filed a petition seeking an order requiring federal officials to allow Beltran and S. C. to re-enter the United States. The petition relied on the federal mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedure Act, which can allow a court to require an agency to take a specific action that the law requires.

The plaintiffs alleged that Beltran and S. C. had entered the United States legally on tourist visas and later went to the San Ysidro Port of Entry to try to extend their status after the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted flights to Colombia. They said officers eventually released them into Mexico. The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order, an emergency form of court relief intended to preserve the situation while a dispute is being decided.

The government presented a sworn declaration from a Customs and Border Protection official stating that Beltran and S. C. arrived at the San Ysidro port from Mexico, presented Colombian passports and U.S. tourist visas, and sought to return to San Jose, California. According to the declaration, Customs and Border Protection denied them entry under temporary travel restrictions that limited land travel from Mexico to “essential travel,” because their travel was determined to be nonessential. The plaintiffs did not submit admissible evidence disputing those facts. Their declarations were undated and not signed under penalty of perjury.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. To obtain that relief, the plaintiffs had to show, among other things, that they were likely to succeed on their claims. The court found that their allegations about being forced into Mexico were not supported by admissible evidence and that they had not refuted the government’s evidence that they attempted to enter from Mexico and were denied entry.

Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success, the court did not consider the other requirements for emergency injunctive relief. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request to consider their late-filed reply brief.

Summary Judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the mandamus and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court explained that relief under the Administrative Procedure Act requires a specific agency action that officials were legally required to take. The plaintiffs sought an order requiring officials to admit Beltran and S. C. into the United States. But they did not dispute that their attempted land entry from Mexico was not “essential travel” under the temporary restrictions, and they offered no admissible evidence supporting their alternative account concerning their visas.

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown that admitting Beltran and S. C. was a specific agency action legally required of the defendants. It therefore held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims.

Other Order and Disposition

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ filings did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 because they disclosed the minor’s name and date of birth. It ordered the plaintiffs, within seven days, to file a version of the petition and attachments that complied with the rule and warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions.

The plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order was denied. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. The Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case.