8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
1/41
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next pageAttorneys for plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jane DELEON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;
Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, UnitedStates Citizenship & ImmigrationServices;UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES; andDEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY,
Defendants._________________________________
AEXANDERBUSTOS GARCIA,RICHARDL.FITCH, HOLGA MARTINEZ,MARTHAREYES,
Proposed Plaintiffs-in-intervention_________________________________
))))))))))))
))))))))))))))
))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
Hearing: August 19, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:3369
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
2/41
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment- 2 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto (Cal. Bar No. 190603)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Ext. 277)Facsimile: (714) [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas and for intervening plaintiffs Bustos Garciaand Fitch:
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs DeLeon and for intervening plaintiffs Martinezand Reyes:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)
10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:3370
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
3/41
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment- 3 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
To defendants and their attorneys of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 19, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, pursuant to Rule 56(a), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, plaintiff and proposed plaintiff intervenors will and do hereby move the
Court for the entry of final judgment that the Defense of Marriage Act 3, as applied
by defendants to plaintiff, the proposed plaintiff intervenors, and members of the
certified class violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This motion is made following conferences of counsel pursuant to Local Rule
7-3 which took place on July 2, 2013.
This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum of law and upon
all other matters of record herein. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
are lodged concurrently herewith.
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:3371
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
4/41
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment- 4 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Dated: July 19, 2013. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
GARY H.MANULKINREYNA M.TANNERLaw Offices of Manulkin, Glaser& Bennett
/s/ Peter A. Schey________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:3372
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
5/41
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment- 5 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
256 S. Occidental Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
-
Certificate of Service
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court by using
the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the
same to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: July 19, 2013. /s/ Peter Schey
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:3373
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
6/41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)
Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next pageAttorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jane DELEON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security;Alejandro MAYORKAS, Director, UnitedStates Citizenship & ImmigrationServices;UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES; andDEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY,
Defendants.
_________________________________AEXANDERBUSTOS GARCIA,RICHARDL.FITCH, HOLGA MARTINEZ,MARTHAREYES,
Proposed Plaintiffs-in-intervention_________________________________
))))))))))))
))))))))))))))
)))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FORSUMMARYJUDGMENT.
Hearing: August 19, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:3374
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
7/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - ii -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto (Cal. Bar No. 190603)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Ext. 277)Facsimile: (714) [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas and for intervening plaintiffs Bustos Garciaand Fitch:
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs DeLeon and for intervening plaintiffs Martinezand Reyes:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)
10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:3375
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
8/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - iii -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
II Windsormakes clear that Plaintiff and the proposed PlaintiffIntervenors are entitled to Summary Judgment................................................ 4
VI Conclusion........................................................................................................ 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CasesBollingv. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954) ..................................................................... 9
Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 3738 (1928)......................... 7Romerv.Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 633 (1996) ................................................................ 7
United States v. Windsor, __U.S. __; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4921, 2013 WL 3196928
(June 26, 2013) ........................................................................................................ 4
Williams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942).............................................. 5
Other Authorities1 U.S.C. 7.......................................................................................................... passim
8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq .............................................................................................. 1
28 U. S. C. 530D........................................................................................................ 5
U.S. Const., Fifth Amendment ........................................................................... passim
Rule 23(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Proc..................................................................................... 1
GAO, D. Shah, Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report 1 (GAO04353R,
2004) ........................................................................................................................ 5
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:3376
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
9/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
I INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jane DeLeon (Plaintiff or DeLeon) challenges the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C.
7, as applied to preclude her from receiving certain immigration benefits that are
available to immigrants in heterosexual marriages. DeLeon seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 and Fed. R. Civ. R. 57 as well
as review of agency action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 701-706. (Complaint (Compl.)
at 4, Docket No. 1.)This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief
challenging defendants applying 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7
(DOMA),1 to deny immigrant members of lawfully married same-sex couples
marriage-based benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1101, et seq. (INA).
By order dated April 19, 2013 (Dkt. 126), this Court held that DOMA 3 is
not rationally related to Congress interest in a uniform federal definition of marriage
does not ensur[e] that similarly situated couples will be eligible for the same
1 DOMA 3 provides:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agenciesof the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:3377
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
10/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
federal marital status regardless of the state in which they live and that Plaintiffs
have stated a claim that DOMA 3 violates their equal protection rights.Id. at 14.
The Court certified this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., on
behalf of the following class:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages who have been denied or will be
denied lawful status or related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., by the Department of Homeland Security solely
due to 3 by the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7.
Order Granting Provisional Class Certification, Dkt. 127, at 12.
On April 24, 2013, the Court stayed further proceedings in this action pending
the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-
307, on the ground that the Supreme Courts ruling will simplify the issues before
this Court. Dkt. 129 at 2.
The Court denied a class wide preliminary injunction. The Court mistakenly
found that:
[s]ince [defendants issued their] October 5, 2012 amendment to the Morton
memoranda], immigrants in same-sex marriages may qualify for deferred
action status, which includes the temporary work authorization and tolling of
unlawful presence accrual that Plaintiff DeLeon seeks by this Motion.Indeed,
none of the adverse immigration decisions provided by DeLeon post-date the
one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refersonly to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 10 of 19 Page ID#:3378
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
11/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
October 5, 2012 amendment to the Morton Memo.
Dkt. 128, Order Denying Preliminary Injunction,supra, at 8 (docket references
omitted) (emphasis added). As the Court is now aware, the Morton Memorandum
and its October 5, 2012 supplement address only the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion to stay removal proceedings or execution of orders of removal of certain
immigrants, and have nothing to do with eligibility for deferred action or
employment authorization.
On April 26, 2013, defendants filed a notice correcting the factual findings
underlying the Courts having denied preliminary injunctive relief. Therein,
defendants made clear that
1) USCIS has, in fact, denied I-130 Petitions for Alien Relative since October 5,
2012, based on DOMA 3, Dkt. 131 at 2;
2) CIS will continue to [issue such denials] until there is a definitive ruling
striking down DOMA 3, idat 3; and
3) defendants grant class members deferred action and employment
authorization only in extraordinary circumstances
Dkt. 131 at 4 (emphasis added).2
2 Defendants further clarified that their prosecutorial discretion memos address onlywhether DHS immigration enforcement agencies, typically ICE, will proceed againsta class member in removal or deportation proceedings. See Dkt. 131 at 3-4 and n.3(USCIS [the agency that denied petitions based on DOMA] therefore does notexercise prosecutorial discretion pursuant to the Morton memo. (Emphasissupplied)).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 11 of 19 Page ID#:3379
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
12/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants now admit having made numerous adverse immigration decisions
affecting those in the plaintiff class [before and] after October 5, 2012. See Dkt.
131;see also Dkt. 135, Plaintiffs Exhibits 37-41 (post-October 5, 2012, denials of
multiple class members immigration applications). Defendants also now admit that
neither their prosecutorial discretion memos nor the unlikely possibility of getting
deferred action afforded class members whose applications for pre-adjudication
employment authorization and for adjustment of status CIS unconstitutionally denied
any real protection from joblessness or inadmissibility.
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held that DOMA denies due process
and equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Windsor, U.S. ; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4921, 2013 WL 3196928 (June
26, 2013).
Plaintiff class representative DeLeon and the proposed intervening plaintiffs
accordingly now move the Court to enter summary judgment in this case.
II WINDSOR MAKES CLEAR THAT PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED PLAINTIFF
INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies
of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 12 of 19 Page ID#:3380
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
13/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers
only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
1 U.S.C. 7.
The definitional provision does not by its terms forbid States from enacting
laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions or providing state benefits to
residents in that status. The enactments comprehensive definition of marriage for
purposes of all federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its
terms, however, does control over 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal
status is addressed as a matter of federal law, including the Immigration and
Nationality Act. See GAO, D. Shah, Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior
Report 1 (GAO04353R, 2004).
On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General of the United States notified the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 530D, that the
Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMAs 3.
Noting that the Department has previously defended DOMA against . . . challenges
involving legally married same-sex couples, the Attorney General informed
Congress that the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including
a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation
should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. SeeWindsor, Slip Op. at 3-4.
Although the President . . . instructed the Department not to defend the
statute in Windsor, he also decided that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by
the Executive Branch Id. at 4.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 13 of 19 Page ID#:3381
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
14/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In response to the notice from the Attorney General, the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in
litigation challenging DOMA to defend its constitutionality.Id. The Department of
Justice did not oppose limited intervention by BLAG in Windsoror in this case.
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law
applicable to its residents and citizens. Windsor, Slip Op. at 17, citingWilliams v.
North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (Each state as a sovereign has a rightful
and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders).
The definition of marriage is the foundation of the States broader authority to
regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the [p]rotection of
offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.Id.
quotingWilliams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. at 298.
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through
our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic
relations.Id.
DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and
obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though
they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.Id. at
18.
Despite these considerations, the Supreme Court held in Windsorthat it was
unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power was a violation
of the Constitution because the States power in defining the marital relation is of
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 14 of 19 Page ID#:3382
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
15/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism.Id.
The States decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred
upon them a dignity and status of immense import.Id. When the State used its
historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and
its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of
the class in their own community.Id.
DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition
of reliance on state law to define marriage.Id. at 18-19. [D]iscriminations of an
unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they
are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.Id. at 19, quotingRomerv.Evans,
517 U. S. 620, 633 (1996) (quotingLouisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.
S. 32, 3738 (1928)).
DOMA 3 uses this state-defined class for the opposite purposeto impose
restrictions and disabilities.Id. at 19. That result required the Supreme Court to
address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part
of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.Id.
DOMA seeks to injure the very classes certain states sought to protect when
they legalized same sex marriages.Id. at 20. The Constitutions guarantee of equality
must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically
unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.Id. quoting
Department of Agriculture v.Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534535 (1973). The history of
DOMAs enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 15 of 19 Page ID#:3383
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
16/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of
their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.Id. at
21. It was its essence.Id.3
The principal effect of Defendants implementation of DOMA, even after
defendants decided it was unconstitutional and were told so by numerous courts, was
to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal for
purposes of benefits otherwise available under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Id. at 22.
By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same States,
DOMA forced same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but
unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and
predictability of basic personal relations [certain] State[s] [have] found it proper to
acknowledge and protect.Id.
As the record in this case makes clear, defendants application of DOMA and
refusal to hold these cases in abeyance has, as it did in Windsor, place[d] same-sex
couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.Id. at 23.
The declarations on file in this case fully confirm the Supreme Courts
observation that [u]nder DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives
burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.Id. at 23.
3 For a detailed discussion of DOMAs legislative history,see Plaintiffs Oppositionto Defendant-Intervenors Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 71, at pp. 18-24.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 16 of 19 Page ID#:3384
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
17/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. [T]hough Congress has
great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it
cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.Id. at 25.
DOMA is invalid for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect
to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to
protect in personhood and dignity.Id. 25-26.
By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in
marriages less respected than others, [DOMA] violates basic due process and equal
protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.Id. at 20 (emphasis
added), citingU.S. Const., Fifth Amendment;Bollingv. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497
(1954) (emphasis added),
VI CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff and proposed plaintiff intervenors
respectfully move for the entry of summary judgment.
Dated: July 19, 2013. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
PUBLIC LAW CENTER
A. Christian Abasto
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 17 of 19 Page ID#:3385
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
18/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner
/s/ Peter A. Schey________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________
Attorneys for plaintiffs
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 18 of 19 Page ID#:3386
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
19/41
Motion for Summary Judgment - 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which
provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of
record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: July 19, 2013. /s/ Peter Schey
///
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144 Filed 07/19/13 Page 19 of 19 Page ID#:3387
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
20/41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next page
Attorneys for plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jane DELEON,
Plaintiff,v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security; et al.,SECURITY,
Defendants._________________________________ALEXANDERBUSTOS GARCIA,RICHARDL.FITCH, HOLGA MARTINEZ,MARTHAREYES,
Plaintiffs-in-intervention_________________________________
)))))))
)))))))))))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
STATEMENT OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Hearing: August 19, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 11 Page ID#:3388
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
21/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - ii -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto (Cal. Bar No. 190603)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Ext. 277)Facsimile: (714) [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas and for intervening plaintiffs Bustos Garciaand Fitch:
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs DeLeon and Rodriguez and interveningplaintiffs Martinez and Reyes:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)
10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 11 Page ID#:3389
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
22/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT
1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case on July 12, 2012, challenging
defendants enforcement of DOMA 3 as being in violation of her due process and
equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. (Compl., Docket No. 1.)
2. The proposedIntervening plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Intervention
and Motion to Intervene on July 8, 2013. (Motion to Intervene, Docket No. 133);
(Compl. in Intervention, Docket No. 133, Attachment 1).
3. Plaintiff and members of the certified class are members of lawful same-sex
marriages denied benefits under the INA by defendants solely due to DOMA 3.
4. Plaintiff Jane DeLeon is the spouse of a U. S. Citizen, former plaintiff Irma
Rodriguez. On November 9, 2011, defendants denied plaintiff DeLeon a waiver of
inadmissibility solely because, under DOMA 3, plaintiff DeLeon and her spouse
are of the sex. (USCIS denial of Motion to Reopen or Reconsider, Docket No. 12,
Exhibit 1). Defendants informed plaintiff DeLeon that she was no longer authorized
for employment, that her authorized presence was also terminated, and that she
would thereafter accrue unauthorized presence that could render her inadmissible to
the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B). (USCIS Decision, Docket
No. 12, Exhibit 2, p. 4.)
5. Intervening plaintiff Martha Reyes is a U.S. citizen; intervening plaintiff
Holga Martinez is a citizen and national of Mexico. (Declaration of Holga Martinez,
Docket No. 93, Exhibit 18;see also USCIS Sept. 26, 2011, Notice of Decision,
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 3 of 11 Page ID#:3390
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
23/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Docket No. 89, Exhibits 13 and 17). Intervening plaintiffs Martinez and Reyes are
lawfully married, of the same sex, and reside together in Anaheim, California.Id. On
or about September 26, 2011, defendants denied temporary authorized presence,
employment authorization, and lawful permanent residence to intervening plaintiff
Martinez solely pursuant to DOMA 3 because both she and intervening plaintiff
Reyes are women.Id. Defendants notified intervening plaintiff Martinez that your
authorization to accept employment is terminated, that her authorized presence is
also terminated, and that she would thereafter accrue unauthorized presence that
could render her inadmissible to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B). (USCIS Decision, Docket No. 89, Exhibit 17).
6. Intervening plaintiff Richard L. Fitch is a U.S. citizen; intervening plaintiff
Alexander Bustos Garcia is a citizen and national of Colombia. Intervening plaintiffs
Fitch and Bustos are lawfully married, of the same sex, and reside together in San
Francisco, California. (Declarations of Richard L. Fitch and Alexander Bustos
Garcia, Docket No. 135, Exhibits 56 and 57.) On or about June 14, 2013, defendants
denied intervening plaintiff Bustos Garcia temporary authorized presence,
employment authorization, and lawful permanent residence solely pursuant to
DOMA 3 because both intervening plaintiffs Fitch and Bustos are men. (Id.;see
also USCIS case status report, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 61.) Pursuant to defendants
policy and practice, intervening plaintiff Bustos Garcia was thereafter precluded
from lawful employment in the United States and began accruing unauthorized
presence that may render him inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B).Id.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 4 of 11 Page ID#:3391
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
24/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the United States
Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Napolitano is charged with the
administration of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is a subordinate agency within
the Department of Homeland Security, and as such is under the authority and
supervision of defendant Napolitano. She is sued in her official capacity. (Compl.,
Docket No. 1, p. 5, 11;see also 8 C.F.R. 2.1 (as amended March 6, 2003).)
8. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Director of defendant the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an entity within the United States
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with statutory responsibility for
adjudicating petitions filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent residents
to grant lawful immigration status to immediate relative immigrant family
members, including lawful spouses of United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents. He is sued in his official capacity. (Id., p. 6, 12;see also 8 C.F.R.
2.1(d) (as amended March 6, 2003).)
7. Defendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS) is an entity within the DHS with statutory responsibility to adjudicate
petitions and applications filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents to grant lawful immigration status to immigrant family members, including
lawful spouses of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Id., p. 6,
13;see also 8 C.F.R. 2.1(x) (as amended March 6, 2003).)
8. April 19, 2013, the Court certified this action on behalf of the following
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 5 of 11 Page ID#:3392
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
25/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
class of similarly situated persons:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages who have been denied or will be
denied lawful status or related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., by the Department of Homeland Security solely
due to 3 by the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7.
(Order Granting Provisional Class Certification, Docket No. 127, at 12.) The Court
appointed plaintiff DeLeon as class representative. (Id. at 12.)
9. Plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs and their class members have suffered
irreparable harm because of defendants application of DOMA 3, including
emotional distress and anxiety,1 the accumulation of unauthorized presence and
denial of the right to lawful employment,2 and denial of their family-based
applications and petitions.3 Defendants policies and practices have deprived
plaintiff, intervening plaintiffs, and members of the certified class of due process and
1 (See, e.g., Declarations of Richard L. Fitch and Alexander Bustos Garcia, Dkt. 135,Exhibits 56 and 57; Declaration of Holga Martinez, Docket No. 93, Exhibit 18, 5;Declaration of Samuel Conlon, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 50, 12-13; The Impact ofInstitutional Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay, and BisexualPopulations: A Prospective Study, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 55.)
2 (Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket
No. 39, 19:8-16.)3 (See, e.g., Defendants Notice to the Court, Docket No. 131, p. 2 (denials issuedafter October 5, 2012;see also denial of Motion to Reopen or Reconsider (DeLeon),Docket No. 12, Exhibit 1; USCIS Decision (DeLeon), Docket No. 12, Exhibit 2;USCIS case status report (class members Firtch and Bustos), Docket No. 135,Exhibit 61; Notice of Decision (class members Reyes and Martinez), Docket No. 89,
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 6 of 11 Page ID#:3393
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
26/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.10. Any conclusion of law set forth herein that is more properly deemed an
uncontroverted fact is hereby incorporated into this statement of uncontroverted
facts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
Venue is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (e)(1), (2), and
(4), because acts complained of occurred in this district, plaintiff DeLeon resides in
this district, defendant has offices in this district, and no real property is involved in
this action.
2. Plaintiffs [if applicable: and intervening plaintiffs] action for declaratory
and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 and Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
Rule 57, and for review of agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706.
3. A motion for summary judgment should be granted when there is no
genuine issue as to material fact[s], and the moving party is entitled to [judgment]
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if the evidence is
Exhibits 13 and 17; Plaintiffs Exhibits 34-61, Docket No. 135, Exhibits 37-45(denials of various class members applications).)
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 7 of 11 Page ID#:3394
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
27/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id., at
248.
4. In 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 110 Stat.
2419, 1 U.S.C. 7. DOMA contains two operative sections: Section 2, which is not
challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed
under the laws of other States. Section 3, which is at issue here, amends the
Dictionary Act in Title 1, 7, of the United States Code to provide a federal
definition of marriage and spouse. Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows: In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U. S. C. 7.
5. The enactments comprehensive definition of marriage for purposes of all
federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its terms controls over
1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of
federal law, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
(INA). United States v. Windsor, _U.S. _; 81 U.S.L.W. 4633 (June 26, 2013), Slip.
Op. at 1-2.
6. In general, a marriage is valid for immigration purposes if it is valid under
the law of the state where it was celebrated.Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 746,
748 (BIA 2005). Historically, as long as two people intend to establish a life together
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 8 of 11 Page ID#:3395
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
28/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at the time of the marriage, the marriage is valid for immigration purposes.Bark v.
INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975). Defendants refusing to recognize same-sex
couples lawful marriages as valid for purposes of conferring immigration benefits
was accordingly not a function of the INA, but rather of DOMA 3.
7. In Windsor,supra, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA 3 because it
seeks to injure the very class [states authorizing same-sex marriage] seek[ ] to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles
applicable to the Federal Government. Slip. Op. at 20.
8. Defendants pre-Windsorrefusal to recognize lawfully married same-sex
couples marriages pursuant to DOMA 3 as valid predicates for the granting of
immigration benefits accordingly violated the equal protection and due process
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. The accrual of unlawful presence can lead to significant bars to admission
to the United States, should DeLeon or class members leave the country (including
to obtain a visa) and attempt to re-enter. (Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 39, 19:8-16 (citing8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B);In re Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 734 (BIA 2012);In re Rodarte-
Roman, 23 I. & N. Dec. 905 (BIA 2006).)
10. Any injury suffered by DeLeon and members of the certified class may be
be ended by an order by this Court ultimately declaring DOMA to be
unconstitutional and directing USCIS to reopen and adjudicate [DeLeons and class
members] applications without regard to DOMA (Defendants Opposition to
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 9 of 11 Page ID#:3396
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
29/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 39, 19:27-20:2.)
11. Any fact set forth above as an uncontroverted fact that is more properly
deemed a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated into these conclusions of law.
Dated: July 19, 2013. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan
GARY H.MANULKINREYNA M.TANNERLaw Offices of Manulkin, Glaser& Bennett
/s/ Peter A. Schey________________
/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID#:3397
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
30/41
Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law - 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with the
Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice
and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts
CM/ECF system.
Dated: July 19, 2013. /s/ ___________________________Peter Schey
///
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-1 Filed 07/19/13 Page 11 of 11 Page ID#:3398
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
31/41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org
Additional counsel listed next page
Attorneys for plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jane DELEON,
Plaintiff,v.
Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security; et al.,SECURITY,
Defendants._________________________________ALEXANDERBUSTOS GARCIA,RICHARDL.FITCH, HOLGA MARTINEZ,MARTHAREYES,
Plaintiffs-in-intervention_________________________________
)))))))
)))))))))))))))))
SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)
FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW;ORDER GRANTINGSUMMARY JUDGMENT.
[Proposed]
Hearing: August 19, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Hon. Consuelo B. MarshallSpring St., Courtroom No. 2
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 11 Page ID#:3399
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
32/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - ii -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
PUBLIC LAW CENTERA. Christian Abasto (Cal. Bar No. 190603)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701
Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Ext. 277)Facsimile: (714) [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas and for intervening plaintiffs Bustos Garciaand Fitch:
ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]
Additional counsel for plaintiffs DeLeon and Rodriguez and interveningplaintiffs Martinez and Reyes:
LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)
10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com
/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 2 of 11 Page ID#:3400
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
33/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Jane DeLeon (Plaintiff or DeLeon) challenges the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C.
7, as applied to deny her certain immigration benefits that have been and continue to
be available to immigrants in heterosexual marriages. DeLeon seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 and Fed. R. Civ. R. 57 as well
as review of agency action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 701-706. (Complaint (Compl.)
at 4, Docket No. 1.)
The matter before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United
States District Judge presiding, is Plaintiff DeLeons Motion for Summary Judgment
(Motion). [Docket No. __.]
FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT
1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case on July 12, 2012, challenging
defendants enforcement of DOMA 3 as being in violation of her due process and
equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. (Compl., Docket No. 1.)
2. Intervening plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Intervention and Motion to
Intervene on July 8, 2013. (Motion to Intervene, Docket No. 133); (Compl. in
Intervention, Docket No. 133, Attachment 1). The Court ___________ [granted or
denied] the motion to intervene.
3. Plaintiff and members of the certified class are members of lawful same-sex
marriages denied benefits under the INA by defendants solely due to DOMA 3.
4. Plaintiff Jane DeLeon is the spouse of a U. S. Citizen, former plaintiff Irma
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 3 of 11 Page ID#:3401
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
34/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rodriguez. On November 9, 2011, defendants denied plaintiff DeLeon a waiver of
inadmissibility solely because, under DOMA 3, plaintiff DeLeon and her spouse
are of the sex. (USCIS denial of Motion to Reopen or Reconsider, Docket No. 12,
Exhibit 1). Defendants informed plaintiff DeLeon that she was no longer authorized
for employment, that her authorized presence was also terminated, and that she
would thereafter accrue unauthorized presence that could render her inadmissible to
the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B). (USCIS Decision, Docket
No. 12, Exhibit 2, p. 4.)
5. Intervening plaintiff Martha Reyes is a U.S. citizen; intervening plaintiff
Holga Martinez is a citizen and national of Mexico. (Declaration of Holga Martinez,
Docket No. 93, Exhibit 18;see also USCIS Sept. 26, 2011, Notice of Decision,
Docket No. 89, Exhibits 13 and 17). Intervening plaintiffs Martinez and Reyes are
lawfully married, of the same sex, and reside together in Anaheim, California.Id. On
or about September 26, 2011, defendants denied temporary authorized presence,
employment authorization, and lawful permanent residence to intervening plaintiff
Martinez solely pursuant to DOMA 3 because both she and intervening plaintiff
Reyes are women.Id. Defendants notified intervening plaintiff Martinez that your
authorization to accept employment is terminated, that her authorized presence is
also terminated, and that she would thereafter accrue unauthorized presence that
could render her inadmissible to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B). (USCIS Decision, Docket No. 89, Exhibit 17).
6. Intervening plaintiff Richard L. Fitch is a U.S. citizen; intervening plaintiff
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 4 of 11 Page ID#:3402
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
35/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alexander Bustos Garcia is a citizen and national of Colombia. Intervening plaintiffs
Fitch and Bustos are lawfully married, of the same sex, and reside together in San
Francisco, California. (Declarations of Richard L. Fitch and Alexander Bustos
Garcia, Docket No. 135, Exhibits 56 and 57.) On or about June 14, 2013, defendants
denied intervening plaintiff Bustos Garcia temporary authorized presence,
employment authorization, and lawful permanent residence solely pursuant to
DOMA 3 because both intervening plaintiffs Fitch and Bustos are men. (Id.;see
also USCIS case status report, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 61.) Pursuant to defendants
policy and practice, intervening plaintiff Bustos Garcia was thereafter precluded
from lawful employment in the United States and began accruing unauthorized
presence that may render him inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B).Id.
7. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of the United States
Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Napolitano is charged with the
administration of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is a subordinate agency within
the Department of Homeland Security, and as such is under the authority and
supervision of defendant Napolitano. She is sued in her official capacity. (Compl.,
Docket No. 1, p. 5, 11;see also 8 C.F.R. 2.1 (as amended March 6, 2003).)
8. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Director of defendant the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, an entity within the United States
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with statutory responsibility for
adjudicating petitions filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent residents
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 5 of 11 Page ID#:3403
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
36/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to grant lawful immigration status to immediate relative immigrant family
members, including lawful spouses of United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents. He is sued in his official capacity. (Id., p. 6, 12;see also 8 C.F.R.
2.1(d) (as amended March 6, 2003).)
7. Defendant the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS) is an entity within the DHS with statutory responsibility to adjudicate
petitions and applications filed by United States citizens and lawful permanent
residents to grant lawful immigration status to immigrant family members, including
lawful spouses of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Id., p. 6,
13;see also 8 C.F.R. 2.1(x) (as amended March 6, 2003).)
8. April 19, 2013, the Court certified this action on behalf of the following
class of similarly situated persons:
All members of lawful same-sex marriages who have been denied or will be
denied lawful status or related benefits under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., by the Department of Homeland Security solely
due to 3 by the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7.
(Order Granting Provisional Class Certification, Docket No. 127, at 12.) The Court
appointed plaintiff DeLeon as class representative. (Id. at 12.) The Courts findings
and conclusions regarding the propriety of class certification are incorporated here
by reference.
9. Plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs and their class members have suffered
irreparable harm because of defendants application of DOMA 3, including
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 6 of 11 Page ID#:3404
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
37/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
emotional distress and anxiety,1 the accumulation of unauthorized presence and
denial of the right to lawful employment,2 and denial of their family-based
applications and petitions.3 Defendants policies and practices have deprived
plaintiff, intervening plaintiffs, and members of the certified class of due process and
equal protection in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.10. Any conclusion of law set forth below that is more properly deemed a
finding of fact is hereby incorporated into these findings of fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
Venue is properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (e)(1), (2), and
(4), because acts complained of occurred in this district, plaintiff DeLeon resides in
1 (See, e.g., Declarations of Richard L. Fitch and Alexander Bustos Garcia, Dkt. 135,Exhibits 56 and 57; Declaration of Holga Martinez, Docket No. 93, Exhibit 18, 5;Declaration of Samuel Conlon, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 50, 12-13; The Impact ofInstitutional Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay, and BisexualPopulations: A Prospective Study, Docket No. 135, Exhibit 55.)
2 (Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, DocketNo. 39, 19:8-16.)
3 (See, e.g., Defendants Notice to the Court, Docket No. 131, p. 2 (denials issuedafter October 5, 2012;see also denial of Motion to Reopen or Reconsider (DeLeon),Docket No. 12, Exhibit 1; USCIS Decision (DeLeon), Docket No. 12, Exhibit 2;USCIS case status report (class members Firtch and Bustos), Docket No. 135,Exhibit 61; Notice of Decision (class members Reyes and Martinez), Docket No. 89,Exhibits 13 and 17; Plaintiffs Exhibits 34-61, Docket No. 135, Exhibits 37-45(denials of various class members applications).)
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 7 of 11 Page ID#:3405
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
38/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this district, defendant has offices in this district, and no real property is involved in
this action.
2. Plaintiffs [if applicable: and intervening plaintiffs] action for declaratory
and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 and Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
Rule 57, and for review of agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706.
3. A motion for summary judgment should be granted when there is no
genuine issue as to material fact[s], and the moving party is entitled to [judgment]
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id., at
248.
4. In 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 110 Stat.
2419, 1 U.S.C. 7. DOMA contains two operative sections: Section 2, which is not
challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed
under the laws of other States. Section 3, which is at issue here, amends the
Dictionary Act in Title 1, 7, of the United States Code to provide a federal
definition of marriage and spouse. Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows: In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 8 of 11 Page ID#:3406
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
39/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U. S. C. 7.
5. The enactments comprehensive definition of marriage for purposes of all
federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its terms controls over
1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of
federal law, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.
(INA). United States v. Windsor, _U.S. _; 81 U.S.L.W. 4633 (June 26, 2013), Slip.
Op. at 1-2.
6. In general, a marriage is valid for immigration purposes if it is valid under
the law of the state where it was celebrated.Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I&N Dec. 746,
748 (BIA 2005). Historically, as long as two people intend to establish a life together
at the time of the marriage, the marriage is valid for immigration purposes.Bark v.
INS, 511 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1975). Defendants refusing to recognize same-sex
couples lawful marriages as valid for purposes of conferring immigration benefits
was accordingly not a function of the INA, but rather of DOMA 3.
7. In Windsor,supra, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA 3 because it
seeks to injure the very class [states authorizing same-sex marriage] seek[ ] to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles
applicable to the Federal Government. Slip. Op. at 20.
8. Defendants pre-Windsorrefusal to recognize lawfully married same-sex
couples marriages pursuant to DOMA 3 as valid predicates for the granting of
immigration benefits accordingly violated the equal protection and due process
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 9 of 11 Page ID#:3407
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
40/41
[Proposed] Order & Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. The accrual of unlawful presence can lead to significant bars to admission
to the United States, should DeLeon or class members leave the country (including
to obtain a visa) and attempt to re-enter. (Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 39, 19:8-16 (citing8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(B);In re Lemus-Losa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 734 (BIA 2012);In re Rodarte-
Roman, 23 I. & N. Dec. 905 (BIA 2006).)
10. Any injury suffered by DeLeon and members of the certified class may be
be ended by an order by this Court ultimately declaring DOMA to be
unconstitutional and directing USCIS to reopen and adjudicate [DeLeons and class
members] applications without regard to DOMA (Defendants Opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 39, 19:27-20:2.)
11. Any finding of fact set forth above that is more properly deemed a
conclusion of law is hereby incorporated into these conclusions of law.
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment.
DATED: August __ 2013.
______________________________
CONSUELO B. MARSHALLUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented by
Peter Schey and Carlos Holgun
Attorneys for plaintiff, intervening plaintiffs,
and members of the certified class
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 10 of 11 Page ID#:3408
8/22/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #144
41/41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
SACV12-01137CBM(AJWX)
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with the Clerk of Court by using the
CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same
to all attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system.
Dated: July 19, 2013. /s/ ___________________________Peter Schey
///
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 144-2 Filed 07/19/13 Page 11 of 11 Page ID#:3409
Top Related