Chibinda v. Bur. of Motor Vehicles

[Cite as Chibinda v. Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2018-Ohio-1378.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Peter Chibinda, et al., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 17AP-117 v. : (C.P.C. No. 16CVH-759) Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellee. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on April 12, 2018 On brief: Peter Chibinda, pro se; Dora Chibinda, pro se. On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Peter L. Jamison, for appellee. Argued: Peter L. Jamison. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas BRUNNER, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Peter Chibinda and Dora Chibinda, appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant-appellee, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV"). For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶ 2} We have examined the entire record and the affidavits submitted by the parties. While these affidavits were not attached to the complaint or the answer, they are helpful in understanding the underlying background and facts of this litigation, all the while limiting our review to the appropriate standard required by law. {¶ 3} The Chibindas are from Zambia but have lived in Ohio for over 25 years and have had driver's licenses the entire time of their Ohio residence until November 2015 when the BMV denied their applications. The Chibindas contend that they submitted all the No. 17AP-117 2 required documentation to renew their driver's licenses. The Chibindas submitted an approved immigration form I-130 (visa petition for immediate relatives of American citizen) and a receipt for adjustment of status (Form I-485) to permanent residency (green card). These are the documents they had submitted in previous years to renew their licenses. The Chibindas argue that the BMV required them to produce valid passports, but their passports expired 20 years prior. {¶ 4} The Chibindas filed a pro se complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, seeking declaratory and emergency injunctive relief to require the BMV to renew their driver's licenses.1 The Chibindas argue in their complaint that the statutes governing the BMV do not require driver license applicants to produce valid passports and the BMV lacks the legal authority to require such documentation. {¶ 5} The BMV filed a motion requesting the court reclassify the case category from an administrative appeal to a declaratory judgment since the relief the Chibindas sought was declaratory in nature. The trial court granted the motion and reclassified the case category. {¶ 6} Peter Chibinda filed a purported affidavit that was not notarized. In this document, Mr. Chibinda states he came to the United States in 1990 with an F1 student visa and his wife joined him in December 1991 with an F2 visa (spouse of an F1 visa holder). After receiving his Ohio driver's license, he states he renewed it several times without any incident. In December 2012, however, Mrs. Chibinda could not renew her license. Mrs. Chibinda received a Form I-797 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals