Fofana v. Mayorkas
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-03163
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fofana v. Mayorkas, Judge Tunheim denied the government’s motion to amend judgment and dismiss the immigration case for lack of jurisdiction.
The order directly affected Abrahim Mohamed Fofana and the government defendants by leaving the court’s earlier summary judgment for Fofana unchanged.
What happened
In Fofana v. Mayorkas, the court had previously entered summary judgment for Abrahim Mohamed Fofana. The government asked the court to change that judgment and dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked power to hear Fofana’s application.
The court declined to change its judgment because it was uncertain whether a recent Eighth Circuit decision controlled this case or whether an earlier decision still applied. The court also noted that the law could be clarified by the Supreme Court in a related case.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the government’s motion to alter, amend, or correct the judgment. The opinion does not change the court’s earlier summary judgment for Fofana.
The detailed version
- Fofana v. Mayorkas · No. 0:18-cv-03163
- John Tunheim
- May 23, 2024
Background
The court had previously granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Abrahim Mohamed Fofana. In that earlier ruling, the court held in part that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not eliminate its jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to review Fofana’s application.
After that ruling, the Eighth Circuit decided Thigulla v. Jaddou, holding that the same statutory provision barred Article III jurisdiction over a challenge involving the prompt adjudication of a lawful permanent resident application under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in another case. The Supreme Court also agreed to review Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, which concerns the scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Motion and analysis
The government moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rule 59(e) permits a court to correct a clear legal or factual error, consider newly discovered evidence, or account for a change in the law. The court has discretion to amend a judgment when those circumstances exist.
The court declined to exercise that discretion. The parties disputed whether Thigulla controlled the case or whether Bremer v. Johnson continued to govern. The court stated that the decisions might be reconciled because decisions about delaying adjudication under § 1255(a) could be more discretionary than admissibility determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). The court also stated that, if Thigulla abandoned Bremer after the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland, the Eighth Circuit should clarify that point. Because Thigulla did not discuss Bremer, the continued validity of the earlier decision was unclear.
The court further noted that the area of law was complex and developing, that the parties could present their arguments to the Eighth Circuit if the government appealed, and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bouarfa might provide additional guidance. The court continued to believe that its interpretation of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as it relates to § 1159(b) was correct.
Disposition
The court denied Defendant’s Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment [Docket No. 101]. The opinion does not state that the prior summary judgment was vacated or otherwise changed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.