Ahmed v. Jaddou
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-04259
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Ahmed v. Jaddou, Judge Illston granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the APA claim, injunctive-relief requests, and agency defendants.
Bassam Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed’s APA claim and related requests for injunctive relief were dismissed or struck, and USCIS and DOS were dismissed as defendants. The order did not dismiss the individual defendants from the claims addressed.
What happened
In Bassam Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed v. Ur M. Jaddou, et al., the plaintiff sought a declaration of United States citizenship, a passport, and review of his denied citizenship application after his passport was revoked and his application was denied. He brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The defendants argued that the APA claim was unavailable because a different federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), provided an adequate way to seek review of the passport revocation and citizenship-application denial. The court agreed and dismissed the APA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the APA claim was dismissed, the court also struck the requests for injunctive relief tied to that claim.
Judge Susan Illston granted in its entirety the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the APA claim, the requests for injunctive relief, and the claims against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State. The opinion states that the citizenship claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) was properly brought against the individual defendants, and it did not dismiss those individual defendants on the grounds addressed in this order.
The detailed version
- Ahmed v. Jaddou · No. 3:23-cv-04259
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Bassam Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed sued Ur M. Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Antony Blinken, and the United States Department of State (DOS). He sought a declaration that he is a United States citizen, issuance of a United States passport, an injunction against revoking or refusing to renew his passport based on non-nationality, and renewed review of his Form N-600 application for a Certificate of Citizenship.
According to the First Amended Complaint, USCIS denied Ahmed’s N-600 application in 2015 because he had not established his relationship to Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed, whom he alleged was his father. Ahmed later received a United States passport. USCIS reopened and remanded his N-600 application in 2020, but the Department of State issued a notice revoking his passport in 2022. USCIS denied the N-600 application again in 2023, stating that DNA testing showed Ahmed was the full sibling of two other people but did not establish that Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed was his father.
The First Amended Complaint asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706; 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), seeking a declaration of citizenship; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
APA Claim
The defendants moved to dismiss the APA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or alternatively under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) provided an adequate judicial remedy and therefore barred duplicative APA review. Ahmed argued that the APA claim also challenged the government’s processes, policies, and procedures.
The court explained that the APA permits review only when there is no other adequate remedy in court. It concluded that all the relief requested in the complaint concerned a declaration of United States citizenship and the reissuance of Ahmed’s passport. The court held that § 1503(a) provided an adequate remedy for review of the passport revocation and N-600 denial. It therefore dismissed the APA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Injunctive Relief
The defendants also moved against Ahmed’s requests for injunctive relief. Ahmed clarified that those requests related to his APA claim. Because the court dismissed the APA claim, it struck the requests for injunctive relief from the complaint’s prayer for relief.
Agency Defendants
The court stated that the claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) was properly brought only against the individual defendants Jaddou, Mayorkas, and Blinken. Because the APA claim was dismissed, the court also dismissed USCIS and DOS as defendants from the Declaratory Judgment Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court granted in its entirety the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Ahmed’s APA cause of action, his request for injunctive relief, and defendants USCIS and DOS. The order did not state that it dismissed the individual defendants from the claims addressed in the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.