NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0093n.06 No. 19-3240 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 10, 2020 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk DARIA SALEH; L.A., a minor; E.A., a minor; ) B.A., a minor, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; ) OPINION CHRISTOPHER WRAY, Director of Federal ) Bureau of Investigation; KIRSTJEN M. ) NIELSEN, Secretary of the Department of ) Homeland Security, in their individual and ) official capacity, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ) Before: MOORE, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, citizen children of a lawful permanent resident, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their Declaratory Judgment Act claims brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought two declarations from the district court: (1) that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) conspired and fraudulently misled their father into withdrawing his application for United States citizenship, thereby exposing him to the threat of removal and exposing Plaintiffs to the risk of separation from their father due to removal; and (2) that their father is not required to testify in any trial resulting from his plea agreement in his criminal case. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief, finding that No. 19-3240, Saleh, et al. v. Barr, et al. neither claim was ripe for judicial review. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the district court that Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their claims. Therefore, we affirm. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Plaintiffs, United States citizen children residing in Dayton, Ohio, bring this action for declaratory relief through their mother. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following facts, which this Court accepts as true for the purposes of determining subject-matter jurisdiction at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Kiser v. Reitz, 765 F.3d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 2014). At some point in 2010, Plaintiffs’ father was under investigation for various federal crimes.1 Plaintiffs’ father is a legal permanent resident (“LPR”) of the United States. According to Plaintiffs, his LPR status “expires” in 2019.2 R. 1, Pg. ID 3. As of November 2010, Plaintiffs’ father had fully satisfied the requirements to become a United States citizen. He was scheduled to attend a naturalization ceremony in November 2010. However, one day before the ceremony, an officer from the Cincinnati office of USCIS advised Plaintiffs’ father not to attend the ceremony due to “security reasons.” Id. at Pg. ID 4. Plaintiffs’ father did not attend the ceremony. Plaintiffs allege that the USCIS officer’s statement “was untrue and intended to mislead Plaintiffs’ father into losing his status as a citizen.” Id. 1 Plaintiffs have withheld their father’s name to protect his personal safety. 2 Although Plaintiffs allege that their father’s LPR status “expires,” the district court correctly accepted Defendants’ uncontroverted authority showing that a person does not lose ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals