Gallardo Solis v. McAleena
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-05383
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Alexis Gallardo Solis v. Chad Wolf, Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling the minors exception did not apply to the immigration bar.
Alexis Gallardo Solis could not obtain the requested declaration or challenge to the immigration agency’s decision in this case. The defendants—Chad Wolf, Kenneth Cuccinelli, and Mick Dedvukaj, each sued in an official capacity—obtained dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.
What happened
Alexis Gallardo Solis, a citizen of Mexico, sought admission as a permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Immigration officials denied his application, finding that a federal law barred his admission after he had entered the United States without inspection and accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence.
Gallardo Solis argued that an exception for people who were under 18 should apply because he first reentered the United States at age 15. He also argued that the officials’ decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing certain agency actions, and sought a court declaration that the immigration bar did not apply.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held that the minors exception appears only in a separate immigration provision and does not apply to the provision used against Gallardo Solis. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Administrative Procedure Act claim, held that the request for a declaration also failed, granted the motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Gallardo Solis v. McAleena · No. 1:19-cv-05383
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
Alexis Gallardo Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought admission to the United States as a lawful permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. He first entered the United States without inspection as a young child and reentered without inspection from Mexico in 2005, when he was 15. The opinion states that he later received deferred action and advance parole, traveled to Mexico in 2017, and returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport, where he was inspected and admitted or paroled.
In 2017, Gallardo Solis applied to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services found that his marriage was genuine but denied the application. The agency concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) made him inadmissible because he had accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence and then entered the United States without being admitted. The agency also denied his request for reconsideration.
Claims and Arguments
Gallardo Solis brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. He argued that the agency wrongly interpreted § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). In particular, he argued that the exception in § 1182(a)(9)(B)(iii)(I) for time spent in the United States while a person is under 18 should also apply to § 1182(a)(9)(C).
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The defendants argued that the minors exception applies only to § 1182(a)(9)(B), not to § 1182(a)(9)(C).
Court’s Analysis
The court treated the dispute as a question of statutory interpretation that could be decided on a motion to dismiss. It concluded that the two statutory provisions are unambiguous and independent of one another.
The court identified several differences between the provisions. Section 1182(a)(9)(B) addresses people who were unlawfully present and later seek admission after departing or being removed. Section 1182(a)(9)(C) addresses people who accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence or were ordered removed and then entered or tried to reenter the United States without being admitted. The provisions also impose different consequences and contain different exceptions and waiver provisions.
The minors exception is listed within § 1182(a)(9)(B), and each exception in that subsection refers to that subsection’s own clause (i). Section 1182(a)(9)(C) contains a different, specific exception concerning admission more than 10 years after the person’s last departure and prior consent to reapply. The court held that the shared definition of “unlawful presence” did not authorize the court to add the minors exception to § 1182(a)(9)(C), where Congress did not include it.
Disposition
The court held that Gallardo Solis’s Administrative Procedure Act claim rested on the incorrect premise that the minors exception applied to § 1182(a)(9)(C). It therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim.
The court also held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create an independent legal claim. Because the court dismissed the underlying Administrative Procedure Act claim, it held that the request for a declaratory judgment also failed.
The conclusion states that the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.