UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FREEDOM WATCH, INC., : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 19-cv-1374 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 5 : KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, : : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION In February 2019, non-profit organization Freedom Watch, Inc. (“Freedom Watch”) petitioned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), to investigate U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar for alleged immigration fraud. 1 After DHS did not respond to this petition, Freedom Watch filed suit on May 13, 2019, moving this Court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling two DHS components, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “to enforce governing immigration law,” Compl. 1, by investigating Plaintiff’s allegations against Representative Omar, see id. at 26–28. 2 Defendant moved to dismiss the suit both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim 1 Plaintiff’s complaint states that Freedom Watch filed its DHS petition on October 2, 2014. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1. However, the petition itself, which Plaintiff has attached to its complaint, is dated February 22, 2019. See Petition to Commence Deportation Proceedings for Removal from the United States and/or Prosecution of Ilhan Omar (“Petition”), ECF No. 1-1. Thus, the Court dates Freedom Watch’s submission to DHS to February 22, 2019. 2 Because the original document is unpaginated, the Court cites to ECF page numbers. upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). For the forthcoming reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing; in addition, the Court concludes that, even if Plaintiff had standing, Freedom Watch’s complaint does not state a claim sufficient to survive Defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual and Procedural History Plaintiff Freedom Watch describes itself as a “public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.” Compl. ¶ 1. The instant suit arises from allegations concerning Representative Omar that Freedom Watch submitted to DHS. Specifically, Freedom Watch filed a petition urging DHS to initiate removal proceedings against Representative Omar, id. ¶ 12, based on several overlapping accusations and related factual allegations. First, Freedom Watch alleged in its petition that Representative Omar was not eligible for refugee status and made false statements in seeking admission to the United States. Petition 2–3; see also Compl. ¶¶ 17–25. Second, Freedom Watch alleged that Representative Omar committed marriage fraud to assist another individual, asserted to be her brother, in gaining entry to the United States. Petition 5–7; see also Compl. ¶¶ 57–95. Finally, Freedom Watch alleged that Representative Omar has engaged in anti-Semitic and terrorist activities, Petition 3–4; see also Compl. ¶¶ 27– 47, within five years of her naturalization, rendering her subject to deportation, Petition 14; see also Compl. 26–28. After Freedom Watch received no response from DHS, the organization filed suit in this Court. Freedom Watch contends that the agency’s inaction not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals