Fofana v. Mayorkas
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Fofana v. Mayorkas
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ABRAHIM MOHAMED FOFANA,
Civil No. 18-3163 (JRT/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
United States Department of Homeland AMEND JUDGMENT
Security, et al.,
Defendants.
Cameron Lane Youngs Giebink and David L. Wilson, WILSON LAW GROUP,
3019 Minnehaha Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55406, for Plaintiff.
Friedrich A. P. Siekert, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., CIVIL
DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 600 Nineteenth Street
Northwest, Washington, DC 20006, and Richard Gordon Winstead
Ingebretsen, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, P.O. Box 868, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, for Defendants.
The Court recently entered summary judgment for Plaintiff Abrahim Mohamed
Fofana in this action. (Mem. Op. & Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“SJ Order”) at 30,
Mar. 1, 2024, Docket No. 98.) The Court held, in part, that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not strip its jurisdiction to review Fofana’s application. (Id. at 7–19.) Since that decision, there has been a flurry of related activity in courts of appeals. First, the Eighth Circuit decided that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded Article III jurisdiction over a challenge to the prompt adjudication of a lawful permanent resident application under8 U.S.C. § 1255
(a), Thigulla v. Jaddou,94 F.4th 770, 777
(8th Cir. 2024), and the Fourth Circuit followed suit, Shaiban v. Jaddou,97 F.4th 263
, 265–67 (4th Cir. 2024). The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, a case in which it will interpret the scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). No. 23-583,2024 WL 1839093
(U.S. Apr. 29, 2024).
The government asks the Court to amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) and dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Rule
59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of
the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted). The Court “has broad discretion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e),” including to accommodate changes in the law. SFH, Inc. v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc.,339 F.3d 738
, 746 (8th Cir. 2003); Knish v. Stine,347 F. Supp. 2d 682, 686
(D. Minn. 2004).
The Court will not exercise its discretion to amend judgment here. The parties
dispute whether this case is controlled by Thigulla, or if Bremer v. Johnson continues to
govern. See 834 F.3d 925, 928–31 (8th Cir. 2016); (SJ Order at 11–12.) It is at least possible the decisions can coexist, with decisions to delay adjudication under8 U.S.C. § 1255
(a) being more discretionary than admissibility determinations under §§ 1159(b). And to the extent Thigulla represents an abandonment of Bremer following the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland,596 U.S. 328
(2022), it would be helpful for the Eighth Circuit to clarify as much. See United States v. Williams,537 F.3d 969, 976
(8th Cir. 2008)
(requiring a panel to “explicitly identify” the changed circumstances when one panel
departs from a previous panel’s decision). Thigulla did not discuss Bremer, so the earlier
decision’s continued vitality is unclear.
There are other reasons the Court will not amend judgment. The Court has
appreciated the parties’ thorough arguments, and believes they are well-equipped to
make their cases to the Eighth Circuit should the government decide to appeal this order.*
Additionally, the law may be further clarified once the Supreme Court decides Bouarfa.
Ultimately, this a complex and evolving area of law with no shortage of varying
opinions. The Court issued what it believed, and continues to believe, is the best
interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as it interacts with § 1159(b). Accordingly, the Court will deny the government’s motion to amend judgment.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment [Docket
No. 101] is DENIED.
DATED: May 23, 2024 oa. (isdn
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
1 Thigulla, on the contrary, reached the jurisdiction issue sua sponte, without the benefit
of party argument. It was only able to examine briefing from a separate case. See Thigulla, 94
F.4th at 773 n.3.
-3-
-4- Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ABRAHIM MOHAMED FOFANA,
Civil No. 18-3163 (JRT/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
United States Department of Homeland AMEND JUDGMENT
Security, et al.,
Defendants.
Cameron Lane Youngs Giebink and David L. Wilson, WILSON LAW GROUP,
3019 Minnehaha Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55406, for Plaintiff.
Friedrich A. P. Siekert, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South
Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., CIVIL
DIVISION, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 600 Nineteenth Street
Northwest, Washington, DC 20006, and Richard Gordon Winstead
Ingebretsen, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, P.O. Box 868, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, for Defendants.
The Court recently entered summary judgment for Plaintiff Abrahim Mohamed
Fofana in this action. (Mem. Op. & Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“SJ Order”) at 30,
Mar. 1, 2024, Docket No. 98.) The Court held, in part, that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not strip its jurisdiction to review Fofana’s application. (Id. at 7–19.) Since that decision, there has been a flurry of related activity in courts of appeals. First, the Eighth Circuit decided that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded Article III jurisdiction over a challenge to the prompt adjudication of a lawful permanent resident application under8 U.S.C. § 1255
(a), Thigulla v. Jaddou,94 F.4th 770, 777
(8th Cir. 2024), and the Fourth Circuit followed suit, Shaiban v. Jaddou,97 F.4th 263
, 265–67 (4th Cir. 2024). The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, a case in which it will interpret the scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). No. 23-583,2024 WL 1839093
(U.S. Apr. 29, 2024).
The government asks the Court to amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) and dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Rule
59(e) motions serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of
the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted). The Court “has broad discretion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e),” including to accommodate changes in the law. SFH, Inc. v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc.,339 F.3d 738
, 746 (8th Cir. 2003); Knish v. Stine,347 F. Supp. 2d 682, 686
(D. Minn. 2004).
The Court will not exercise its discretion to amend judgment here. The parties
dispute whether this case is controlled by Thigulla, or if Bremer v. Johnson continues to
govern. See 834 F.3d 925, 928–31 (8th Cir. 2016); (SJ Order at 11–12.) It is at least possible the decisions can coexist, with decisions to delay adjudication under8 U.S.C. § 1255
(a) being more discretionary than admissibility determinations under §§ 1159(b). And to the extent Thigulla represents an abandonment of Bremer following the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland,596 U.S. 328
(2022), it would be helpful for the Eighth Circuit to clarify as much. See United States v. Williams,537 F.3d 969, 976
(8th Cir. 2008)
(requiring a panel to “explicitly identify” the changed circumstances when one panel
departs from a previous panel’s decision). Thigulla did not discuss Bremer, so the earlier
decision’s continued vitality is unclear.
There are other reasons the Court will not amend judgment. The Court has
appreciated the parties’ thorough arguments, and believes they are well-equipped to
make their cases to the Eighth Circuit should the government decide to appeal this order.*
Additionally, the law may be further clarified once the Supreme Court decides Bouarfa.
Ultimately, this a complex and evolving area of law with no shortage of varying
opinions. The Court issued what it believed, and continues to believe, is the best
interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as it interacts with § 1159(b). Accordingly, the Court will deny the government’s motion to amend judgment.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment [Docket
No. 101] is DENIED.
DATED: May 23, 2024 oa. (isdn
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
1 Thigulla, on the contrary, reached the jurisdiction issue sua sponte, without the benefit
of party argument. It was only able to examine briefing from a separate case. See Thigulla, 94
F.4th at 773 n.3.
-3-
-4- Reference
- Status
- Unknown