AISHAT v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:18-cv-00080 Ayman Aishat, Plaintiff, V. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. Before BARKER, District Judge ORDER The report and recommendation of United States Magis- trate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell (Doc. 35) is adopted as the opin- ion of the court. No clear error infects the report’s unobjected- to conclusion on defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 27), which is denied. On de novo review, no error is found in the report's conclusion on the partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 26), which is granted. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 36) to Judge Mitchell’s redressability conclusion is without merit. Plaintiff cites no authority holding that the declaration he seeks on his second and third claims would result in the exclusion of evidence in his 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) proceeding. And even if an exclusionary rule did apply, declaratory relief would not be the vehicle for invoking it; any request to exclude evidence would be raised in that proceeding, presumably in a motion before trial. The Administrative Procedure Act also does not show redressabil- ity. It creates a cause of action but cannot cure a standing de- fect. In any event, the Act authorizes judicial review only if “there is no other adequate remedy,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, which does exist here under § 1421(c). Monterrubio v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 2247223, at *3 (S.D. Tex. May 16, 2018) (citing Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437, 447 (5th Cir. 2002)).

So ordered by the court on March 25, 2020.

J “CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-