UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHING-YUAN TSENG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00435 (CJN) JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Ching-Yuan Tseng, Jung-Fei Ho, Ming-Hui Lin, and Chia-Heng Tsai reside in Taiwan (formerly Formosa). Am. Compl. at 12–16, ECF No. 5. Proceeding pro se, they assert practically incomprehensible claims against the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Japan, and the head of Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency, appearing to allege that Plaintiffs are U.S. nationals and should be issued passports (or “Certificate[s] of Identity”) by either the U.S. or the Japanese government. See generally Am. Compl. They also seek a writ of habeas corpus, id. at 27–28, and request that the Court declare that (1) Taiwan lacks the authority to issue travel documents to them, id. at 28, and (2) they are U.S. nationals who may travel freely among “Formosa,” the United States, and Japan, id. at 29–30. Pending before the Court is the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 25, as well as twenty-eight different motions filed by Plaintiffs. 1 Because Plaintiffs’ claims require the Court to confront the delicate issue of 1 See ECF Nos. 30, 33–34, 36–39, 41–42, 46–48, 50–52, 54–58, 61, 64–67, 74–76. 1 sovereignty over Taiwan, the political question doctrine bars consideration of those claims and the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I. Background A. Plaintiffs’ Claims The Amended Complaint is extremely difficult to understand, and largely consists of quotations to various case law and comments made by government officials. See generally Am. Compl. The Court nevertheless surmises that it presents three claims: a habeas petition; a request for declaratory relief regarding Plaintiffs’ nationality and the respective authorities of China, Taiwan, and the United States; and an APA challenge to Taiwan’s issuance of Plaintiffs’ current passports. See id. Because Plaintiffs do not allege that they are currently detained by Taiwan or any other sovereign, see id., the foundation for their habeas claim is unclear. As for their claims for declaratory relief, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that they are U.S. nationals and that the U.S. or Japanese government should issue them travel documents recognizing that fact; that Taiwan has no authority to issue them travel documents; and that Plaintiffs may freely travel among “Formosa,” the United States, and Japan. Id. at 28–31. Plaintiffs’ third claim is presented as an APA challenge to Taiwan’s issuance of a passport (identifying the holder as a Chinese national) to at least one Plaintiff. Id. at 31–32. Plaintiffs have also filed twenty-eight separate motions. While their Amended Complaint and motions are far from models of clarity, one thing is apparent: at the heart of their claims is the issue of sovereignty over Taiwan. The government moves to dismiss for precisely this reason, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims present a non-justiciable political question or, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief. See generally …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals