Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al.

E.D. California

Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al.

DecidedSeptember 23, 2025

Docket1:20-cv-01556

StatusUnknown

This text of Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al. (Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALIA MAGEB QASEM AL-ATRI, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01556 JLT EPG 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; (2) 12 v. GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 MONICA B. LUGO, et al., AMEND; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 Defendants. (Docs. 96, 101, 113) 15 16 Muneera Nasr Ali Abdullah (“Muneera”), Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri (“Alia”), and 17 Ramzi Mageb Qasem Al-Atri (“Ramzi”)1 assert federal statutory and constitutional claims arising 18 from the denial of Alia and Ramzi’s N-600K Applications for Citizenship and Issuance of 19 Certificate (“N-600K applications”) and the revocation of Muneera’s United States passport. On 20 December 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to 21 grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint 22 (4AC) (Doc. 101) and to deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended 23 Complaint (Doc. 96). (Doc. 113.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiffs be permitted to 24 proceed on the following claims in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint: Fifth Amendment 25 Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 1); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), against 26 USCIS Defendants (Count 2); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), against USCIS Defendants 27 1 Alia and Ramzi were minors at the time this lawsuit was filed in 2020, and earlier filings in this matter 28 refer to these Plaintiffs by their initials, A.M.Q.A. and R.M.Q.A. (See Doc. 112.) 1 (Count 3); Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 4); 2 Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against all Defendants (Count 5); and Declaratory 3 Judgment Act against all Defendants (Count 7). (Id. at 16.) The magistrate judge also 4 recommended that all other claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Id.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 6 any objections were due within 30 days. (Id.) Defendants filed objections on January 24, 2025. 7 (Doc. 116.) Plaintiffs replied to the objections on February 7, 2025. (Doc. 118.) According to 28 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the action. 9 The objections paint in very broad strokes, arguing first that Plaintiffs’ amended claims 10 challenging USCIS’s refusal to re-open Alia and Ramzi’s N-600k applications are futile because 11 “those claims lack redressability.” (Doc. 116 at 3–7.) More specifically, Defendants maintain that 12 it is impossible for this Court to exercise “equitable powers to circumvent the statutory 13 requirements for derivative citizenship” because Alia and Ramzi have now “aged out” and are no 14 longer statutorily eligible for citizenship. (Id. at 3.) Though Defendants are correct that I.N.S. v. 15 Pangilian, 486 U.S. 875 (1988), “precludes the judiciary from exercising its statutory powers of 16 naturalization to redress statutory violations except in strict conformity with Congress’ 17 authorizing legislation[, Pangilian] does not speak to the courts’ capacity to utilize traditional 18 constitutional remedies to rectify constitutional violations.” Wauchope v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 985 19 F.2d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir. 1993). For example, relief may still be available if a plaintiff can show 20 “that the INS’s mishandling of applications resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to 21 due process.” Because redress is possible, the Court is not persuaded that the proposed claims 22 related to the N-600k applications are futile. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 23 655–56 (9th Cir. 2017) (“An amendment is futile when no set of facts can be proved under the 24 amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 25 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added)). 26 Second, Defendants object that the equal protection cause of action is futile on two 27 grounds. First, they point out that a policy referenced in the complaint—the so called “Yemeni 28 adjudication scheme”—has been rescinded. (Doc. 116 at 8.) Plaintiffs do not dispute this but 1 point out the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants continue to engage in 2 practices that derive from that scheme/policy. (See Doc. 118 at 5.) Defendants argue also that the 3 equal protection claim is futile because it is “plainly conclusory and thus fails to state a claim.” 4 (Doc. 116 at 8 (citing Abdo v. U.S. Citizen and Immigration Servs., No. 23-11231, 2024 WL 5 3339267, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2024) (Plaintiffs’ allegations “do not state a plausible equal 6 protection claim to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. . . . [T]he complaint alleges many 7 discriminatory procedures applied to Yemeni petitioners generally, without describing how these 8 procedures applied to the decision in this case. Such ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a 9 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice’ to state a viable claim 10 under Rule 12(b)(6).”).) But the cited case specifically notes that though the Abdo plaintiffs 11 suggested discriminatory policies delayed adjudication of their petitions, they failed to allege 12 “how that delay injured them.” 2024 WL 3339267, at *6, n. 5. Here, the Plaintiffs do allege how 13 delays purportedly caused by Defendants’ misconduct injured them. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 100, 163.) Thus, 14 the equal protection claim is not futile. 15 Finally, the objections address Plaintiffs’ proposed amended challenge to Defendants’ 16 prior decision to revoke Muneera’s passport. (Doc. 116 at 9.) Because Muneera’s U.S. passport 17 has been re-issued, Defendants maintain that any such claim is now moot. (Id.) The Plaintiffs 18 addressed this argument by arguing that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception 19 to mootness applies as follows: 20 [T]he initial lawsuit in this action was filed on October 30, 2020, and in retaliation the Defendants improperly revoked Plaintiff Muneera’s 21 passport and tried to strand a United States citizen overseas. It was the illegal actions of the Defendants which has necessitated each 22 amendment of the Complaint at every step of the process. There is nothing about the actions of the Defendants in issuing a passport now 23 which moots or negates their bad faith conduct during the entirety of this process. . . . The Defendants have demonstrated that their tactics 24 are ongoing, and without regard to whether there is a lawsuit pending, and therefore, it is appropriate for all Constitutional 25 violations claims to be addressed to prevent further malfeasance by the Defendants, necessitating the continued inclusion of their actions 26 against Plaintiff Muneera in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 27 (Doc. 106 at 2.) The allegations contained in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint plausibly 28 support these assertions. Thus, on this record and in the context of the pending motion to amend, 1 | the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ claim related to Muneera’s passport is futile. 2 For all these reasons, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 3 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. This, of course, is without prejudice to a motion 4 | to dismiss that further develops, refines, and targets grounds for dismissal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALIA MAGEB QASEM AL-ATRI, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01556 JLT EPG 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; (2) 12 v. GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 MONICA B. LUGO, et al., AMEND; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 Defendants. (Docs. 96, 101, 113) 15 16 Muneera Nasr Ali Abdullah (“Muneera”), Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri (“Alia”), and 17 Ramzi Mageb Qasem Al-Atri (“Ramzi”)1 assert federal statutory and constitutional claims arising 18 from the denial of Alia and Ramzi’s N-600K Applications for Citizenship and Issuance of 19 Certificate (“N-600K applications”) and the revocation of Muneera’s United States passport. On 20 December 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to 21 grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint 22 (4AC) (Doc. 101) and to deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended 23 Complaint (Doc. 96). (Doc. 113.) The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiffs be permitted to 24 proceed on the following claims in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint: Fifth Amendment 25 Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 1); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), against 26 USCIS Defendants (Count 2); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), against USCIS Defendants 27 1 Alia and Ramzi were minors at the time this lawsuit was filed in 2020, and earlier filings in this matter 28 refer to these Plaintiffs by their initials, A.M.Q.A. and R.M.Q.A. (See Doc. 112.) 1 (Count 3); Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 4); 2 Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against all Defendants (Count 5); and Declaratory 3 Judgment Act against all Defendants (Count 7). (Id. at 16.) The magistrate judge also 4 recommended that all other claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint be dismissed. (Id.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 6 any objections were due within 30 days. (Id.) Defendants filed objections on January 24, 2025. 7 (Doc. 116.) Plaintiffs replied to the objections on February 7, 2025. (Doc. 118.) According to 28 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the action. 9 The objections paint in very broad strokes, arguing first that Plaintiffs’ amended claims 10 challenging USCIS’s refusal to re-open Alia and Ramzi’s N-600k applications are futile because 11 “those claims lack redressability.” (Doc. 116 at 3–7.) More specifically, Defendants maintain that 12 it is impossible for this Court to exercise “equitable powers to circumvent the statutory 13 requirements for derivative citizenship” because Alia and Ramzi have now “aged out” and are no 14 longer statutorily eligible for citizenship. (Id. at 3.) Though Defendants are correct that I.N.S. v. 15 Pangilian, 486 U.S. 875 (1988), “precludes the judiciary from exercising its statutory powers of 16 naturalization to redress statutory violations except in strict conformity with Congress’ 17 authorizing legislation[, Pangilian] does not speak to the courts’ capacity to utilize traditional 18 constitutional remedies to rectify constitutional violations.” Wauchope v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 985 19 F.2d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir. 1993). For example, relief may still be available if a plaintiff can show 20 “that the INS’s mishandling of applications resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to 21 due process.” Because redress is possible, the Court is not persuaded that the proposed claims 22 related to the N-600k applications are futile. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 23 655–56 (9th Cir. 2017) (“An amendment is futile when no set of facts can be proved under the 24 amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 25 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added)). 26 Second, Defendants object that the equal protection cause of action is futile on two 27 grounds. First, they point out that a policy referenced in the complaint—the so called “Yemeni 28 adjudication scheme”—has been rescinded. (Doc. 116 at 8.) Plaintiffs do not dispute this but 1 point out the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants continue to engage in 2 practices that derive from that scheme/policy. (See Doc. 118 at 5.) Defendants argue also that the 3 equal protection claim is futile because it is “plainly conclusory and thus fails to state a claim.” 4 (Doc. 116 at 8 (citing Abdo v. U.S. Citizen and Immigration Servs., No. 23-11231, 2024 WL 5 3339267, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2024) (Plaintiffs’ allegations “do not state a plausible equal 6 protection claim to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. . . . [T]he complaint alleges many 7 discriminatory procedures applied to Yemeni petitioners generally, without describing how these 8 procedures applied to the decision in this case. Such ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a 9 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice’ to state a viable claim 10 under Rule 12(b)(6).”).) But the cited case specifically notes that though the Abdo plaintiffs 11 suggested discriminatory policies delayed adjudication of their petitions, they failed to allege 12 “how that delay injured them.” 2024 WL 3339267, at *6, n. 5. Here, the Plaintiffs do allege how 13 delays purportedly caused by Defendants’ misconduct injured them. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 100, 163.) Thus, 14 the equal protection claim is not futile. 15 Finally, the objections address Plaintiffs’ proposed amended challenge to Defendants’ 16 prior decision to revoke Muneera’s passport. (Doc. 116 at 9.) Because Muneera’s U.S. passport 17 has been re-issued, Defendants maintain that any such claim is now moot. (Id.) The Plaintiffs 18 addressed this argument by arguing that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception 19 to mootness applies as follows: 20 [T]he initial lawsuit in this action was filed on October 30, 2020, and in retaliation the Defendants improperly revoked Plaintiff Muneera’s 21 passport and tried to strand a United States citizen overseas. It was the illegal actions of the Defendants which has necessitated each 22 amendment of the Complaint at every step of the process. There is nothing about the actions of the Defendants in issuing a passport now 23 which moots or negates their bad faith conduct during the entirety of this process. . . . The Defendants have demonstrated that their tactics 24 are ongoing, and without regard to whether there is a lawsuit pending, and therefore, it is appropriate for all Constitutional 25 violations claims to be addressed to prevent further malfeasance by the Defendants, necessitating the continued inclusion of their actions 26 against Plaintiff Muneera in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 27 (Doc. 106 at 2.) The allegations contained in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint plausibly 28 support these assertions. Thus, on this record and in the context of the pending motion to amend, 1 | the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ claim related to Muneera’s passport is futile. 2 For all these reasons, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 3 || supported by the record and by proper analysis. This, of course, is without prejudice to a motion 4 | to dismiss that further develops, refines, and targets grounds for dismissal. Thus, the Court 5 || ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 27, 2024 (Doc. 113) are 7 ADOPTED in full. g 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (Doc. 101) is GRANTED in part and 9 DENIED in part as follows: 10 a. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. ul 101-1) on the docket. Db b. Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed on the following claims in the Fourth

B Amended Complaint: Fifth Amendment Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 1); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), against USCIS Defendants (Count 2); violation of APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), against USCIS Defendants (Count 3); Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process claim against all Defendants (Count 4); Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against all M Defendants (Count 5); and Declaratory Judgment Act against all Defendants 18 (Count 7). 19 c. All other claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint are dismissed. 20 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 96) is 21 DENIED as moot 22 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alia Mageb Qasem Al-Atri, et al. v. Monica B. Lugo, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alia-mageb-qasem-al-atri-et-al-v-monica-b-lugo-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack