American Citizen Children 1-1,375 v. Ashcroft

Tenth Circuit

American Citizen Children 1-1,375 v. Ashcroft

9 F. App'x 814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 2001

Docket00-4128

StatusUnpublished

This text of 9 F. App'x 814 (American Citizen Children 1-1,375 v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Citizen Children 1-1,375 v. Ashcroft, 9 F. App'x 814 (10th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*815 ORDER AND JUDGMENT *****

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellants are 1,375 minor United States citizen children whose parents are undocumented aliens residing illegally in the United States. Sandra Rodrigues, a resident alien, brought this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), on their behalf claiming that defendants’ enforcement of the immigration laws against the children’s parents has violated or will violate the children’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied leave to amend. The district court also denied appellants’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. They appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir.1999). We find no error. The law is clear that “the incidental impact visited upon the children of deportable, illegal aliens does not raise constitutional problems.” Delgado v. INS, 637 F.2d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1980). The district court correctly relied on Delgaclo in dismissing appellants’ case for failure to state a claim. We therefore affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set out in the district court’s order filed on April 12, 2000.

AFFIRMED.

*****

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.

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

*815 ORDER AND JUDGMENT *****

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellants are 1,375 minor United States citizen children whose parents are undocumented aliens residing illegally in the United States. Sandra Rodrigues, a resident alien, brought this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), on their behalf claiming that defendants’ enforcement of the immigration laws against the children’s parents has violated or will violate the children’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied leave to amend. The district court also denied appellants’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. They appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir.1999). We find no error. The law is clear that “the incidental impact visited upon the children of deportable, illegal aliens does not raise constitutional problems.” Delgado v. INS, 637 F.2d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1980). The district court correctly relied on Delgaclo in dismissing appellants’ case for failure to state a claim. We therefore affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set out in the district court’s order filed on April 12, 2000.

AFFIRMED.

*****

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. App'x 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-citizen-children-1-1375-v-ashcroft-ca10-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack