RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0102p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SELENA JEAN COOPER BUTT, ex rel Q.T.R., ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │ > No. 19-3716 v. │ │ │ WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; CHAD F. WOLF, │ Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:18-cv-00383—Sarah Daggett Morrison, District Judge. Decided and Filed: March 31, 2020 Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: George A. Katchmer, Bloomingburg, Ohio, for Appellant. Kevin Koller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, a United States citizen child, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Declaratory Judgment Act claims brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s order. No. 19-3716 Cooper Butt v. Barr, et al. Page 2 BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory relief through his mother. Plaintiff is a United States citizen child residing in Columbus, Ohio. Plaintiff’s father is a Pakistani citizen and previously a legal permanent resident of the United States. Plaintiff’s father was removed from the United States pursuant to a removal order issued in Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiff’s filings do not indicate when his father’s removal proceeding took place and Plaintiff does not indicate the case name or number for his father’s removal proceedings. Plaintiff’s filings also do not provide any information about why his father was removed—for example, which provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., made him deportable. Accordingly, we do not know whether Plaintiff’s father at any time applied for cancellation of removal or whether he petitioned this Court to review the final order of removal entered against him. See id. § 1252 (setting forth requirements for judicial review of removal orders); cf. Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 566 U.S. 583, 594 (2012) (explaining that § 1229b(a) renders noncitizens convicted of certain aggravated felonies ineligible for cancellation of removal). In any event, Plaintiff sought two declarations from the district court concerning his father’s removal. First, Plaintiff requested a declaration that his father’s removal was unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his father’s removal violates Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and various international treaties. Second, Plaintiff sought a declaration that the interview of Plaintiff and his mother during his father’s removal proceeding was unconstitutional because, during the interview, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents made racially discriminatory comments to Plaintiff and his mother, who are African American.1 1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that ICE agents told Plaintiff’s mother “that Black women always marry Muslim foreigners for money and that they were going to stop Blacks from ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals