Rivera Cerda v. Valencia Gonzalez

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Aug 29, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MIGUEL VALENCIA GONZALEZ, No. 1:24-cv-3047-EFS SOCORRO ISABEL SOLTERO, and MARIA TRINIDAD RIVERA CERDA, ORDER GRANTING 8 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING 9 v. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT KARLA MORAN, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR MENDOZA JADDOU, ANTONY J. BLINKEN, PHILLIP SLATTERY and RICHARD C. VISEK, Defendants.

15 Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this lawsuit, which seeks immigration relief, for several reasons, including that Plaintiff’s prior similar lawsuit was dismissed by the Court in March 2024 and therefore this lawsuit should be dismissed on res judicata grounds and for the same reasons the prior lawsuit was dismissed.1 Unlike the prior case in which Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendants’ dismissal motion, Plaintiffs responded to—and oppose—the Motion to See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS.

1 Dismiss in this case, arguing that res judicata does not bar this lawsuit, that subject-matter jurisdiction exists over the I-601A unreasonable delay claims, that the DS-260-visa-related claims are ripe, and that Plaintiffs state plausible claims for relief.

5 Plaintiff’s opposition to dismissal is without merit. First, dismissal of the I- 601A unreasonable-delay claims are proper because claim preclusion bars these claims, as the Court ruled in the prior lawsuit that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims because 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) bars judicial review of whether the agency has processed an I-601A application in a reasonable time.2 Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument otherwise, the Court’s prior decision that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review the unreasonable-delay claims related to the I- 601A application is given preclusive effect.3 13 Second, as was discussed in the Court’s prior order, the DS-260-visa-related claims against the State Department Defendants are unripe.4

2 See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14 at 8–16.

3 See Mast v. Long, 84 Fed. App’x 786, 786–87 (9th Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion); Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1005–06 (9th Cir. 2002).

4 See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14 at 7.

1 Likewise, as was discussed in the Court’s prior order, Plaintiffs fails to state ||a due process claim.® 3 For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted. This lawsuit is || dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).

5 I. CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.

8 2. The Clerk’s Office is to enter Judgment in Defendants’ favor with 9 prejudice as to Plaintiffs I-601A-related claims over which the 10 court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and without prejudice a 11 to Plaintiffs remaining claims.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order an || provide copies to all counsel.

14 DATED this □□□ day August 2024.

15 £ 16 Bnd ‘Hea EDWARD F. SHEA 17 Senior United States District Judge See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EF8, ECF No. 14 at 16-17.

22 See EDWA Case No. 1:23-cv-3166-EFS, ECF No. 14.