From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 13, 2023
C22-904 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2023)

Opinion

C22-904 MJP

01-13-2023

FELIX RUBIO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, AND UR M. JADDOU, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Marsha J. Pechman, United States Senior District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 15.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. No. 18), and all supporting materials, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

Defendants identify what they believe to be two areas of manifest error in the Court's Order denying their motion to dismiss. First, Defendants argue that the Court contravened Ninth Circuit law in finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not apply outside of the removal context. They also contend a new unpublished decision from the Ninth Circuit confirms the manifest error. Second, Defendants argue that the Court's construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) runs afoul of Supreme Court authority and canons of statutory construction. The Court reviews both arguments.

The Court already addressed the substance of Defendants' arguments that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies outside of the removal context. The Motion for Reconsideration simply repackages those same arguments and fails to show manifest error. First, nothing in Patel v. Garland resolves the issue that the Court decided, and Defendants have not shown any manifest error in the Court's interpretation of that opinion. (See Order on MTD at 9-10.) Second, the Court already considered the Ninth Circuit case law Defendants cited, and the Court continues to find it inadequate to have resolved conclusively the question of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)'s application outside of the removal context. (See Order on MTD at 9-11.) Third, the new, unpublished Ninth Circuit decision Defendants cite compels no contrary conclusion. (See Mot. for Reconsideration at 4 (citing Herrera v. Garland, No. 21-17052, 2022 WL 17101156 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022) (unpublished)).) This decision-which is non-precedential-did not resolve the salient question that the Court discussed in depth in the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, and provides no grounds to conclude the Court's decision was manifestly erroneous.

Similarly, the Court remains unconvinced by Defendants' argument that its construction of § 1252(a)(2)(D) demonstrates manifest error. The Court construed the statute to avoid creating “substantial constitutional questions.” See St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 300; Bowen, 476 U.S. at 681 n.12; (Order on MTD at 14-15). Defendants have cited to no authority that contradicts the Court's statutory construction and have failed to demonstrate manifest error.

Defendants have failed to show manifest error in the Court's Order on their Motion to Dismiss or new authority that compels reconsideration. The Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 13, 2023
C22-904 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Hernandez v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

Case Details

Full title:FELIX RUBIO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jan 13, 2023

Citations

C22-904 MJP (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2023)