Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case No. 10–1078.

Motions

Motion to dismiss : Denied Plaintiff

Attorney(S)

Stacie Jonas, Southern Migrant Legal Services, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff. James Larry Stine, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, Stine P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

Judges

Robert Toombs Dawson

Acts

Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Peonage, Slavery, And Trafficking In Persons — Crimes — Forced Labor

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion — Angel Enrique Ramos–Madrigal v. Mendiola Forestry Service, LLC et al., Case No. 10–1078

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs are Mexican migrant workers employed by Defendants to perform forestry work in the U.S. in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiffs allege Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed Plaintiffs' H–2B visa extension documents and thereby violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 14) and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 16). The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed Plaintiffs' passports or other immigration documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–1595 (specifically § 1592(a)).
Whether the alleged concealment or possession constituted an "abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process" under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3) and § 1589(c).
Whether threatening H–2B workers with immigration consequences to prevent them from leaving employment constitutes the "threatened abuse of the legal process" required to state a TVPRA claim.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

Plaintiffs allege Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed their H–2B visa extension documents.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants threatened to withhold those documents until the end of the contract and threatened Plaintiffs with serious immigration consequences, including reporting them to immigration, to prevent them from leaving employment (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 54–55).

Defendants' Arguments

Defendants assert Plaintiffs were in possession of their passports and original H–2B visa documents and therefore were free to return to their original petitioning employer or to Mexico; possession or alleged confiscation of visa extension documents cannot constitute a TVPRA violation.
Defendants argue they violated no law by informing Plaintiffs that if they left employment they would be reported to the immigration service.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)	"The factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."	The Court applied this pleading standard in evaluating the motion to dismiss and accepted Plaintiffs' factual allegations as true.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)	Part of the governing pleading standard regarding factual allegations for Rule 12(b)(6) review.	Used with Twombly to frame the standard that Plaintiffs' allegations must be accepted for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784 (8th Cir.1979)	"A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless 'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'"	The Court cited this standard to decline dismissal where Plaintiffs plausibly alleged facts supporting their TVPRA claim.
Ramos v. Hoyle, 2008 WL 5381821 at *4 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 19, 2008)	Authority that threatening a worker will lose immigration status if he leaves employment constitutes abuse of the legal process.	The Court relied on this decision to support that threats about immigration consequences can constitute "threatened abuse of the legal process" under the TVPRA.
U.S. v. Garcia, 2003 WL 22956917 at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003)	Holding that threatening "serious legal consequences, i.e., deportation" constitutes abuse of the legal process.	Used as supporting authority for the proposition that threats of deportation can be an abusive use of legal process.
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(c)	Regulatory authority explaining H–2B workers may use visa extensions to travel between employers and continue lawful work.	The Court used this regulation to conclude H–2B visa extension documents are a type of "immigration document" contemplated by § 1592(a) because they are necessary to demonstrate lawful employment.
73 Fed.Reg. 78104 (Changes to Requirements Affecting H–2B Nonimmigrants and Their Employers) (Dec. 19, 2008) (codified at 8 C.F.R. Part 214)	Explains that a worker must be able to present visa extension documents in case of an inspection to demonstrate lawful employment.	Supporting the Court's conclusion that withholding visa extension documents can prevent a worker from demonstrating lawful employment.
18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–1595	Statutory basis for Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action (TVPRA provisions cited by the opinion).	Provided the statutory framework under which Plaintiffs pled claims; the Court evaluated the complaint under these provisions.
18 U.S.C.A. § 1589(c)	Defines "abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process" for purposes of § 1589.	The Court applied this definition to determine that threatening immigration consequences to coerce workers can qualify as "threatened abuse of the legal process."
Section 1592(a) of the TVPRA	Makes it unlawful to "knowingly ... conceal [ ] ... or possess[ ] any actual or purported passport or other immigration document, or any other actual or purported government identification document, of another person."	The Court concluded H–2B visa extension documents fall within the scope of "immigration document" under § 1592(a).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court set forth the pleading standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, citing Twombly, Iqbal, and Thomas W. Garland, and noted that factual allegations must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. The Court interpreted Section 1592(a) to include H–2B visa extension documents as "immigration document[s]," reasoning that H–2B workers must possess visa extension paperwork to continue lawfully working in the U.S. and to demonstrate lawful employment during inspections (citing 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(c) and 73 Fed.Reg. 78104). The Court found Plaintiffs adequately pled that Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed those documents and that, by threatening to withhold the extensions and to report workers to immigration to prevent them from leaving, Defendants engaged in an "abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process" as defined in § 1589(c). The Court accepted Plaintiffs' allegations (including ¶¶ 54–55 of the First Amended Complaint) as true for purposes of the motion and relied on authority (e.g., Ramos v. Hoyle, U.S. v. Garcia) holding that threats concerning immigration status or deportation can constitute abuse of the legal process. Based on this analysis, the Court concluded Plaintiffs stated plausible TVPRA claims and denied the motion to dismiss the Third Cause of Action.

Holding and Implications

DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is denied.

Implications: The denial allows Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action under the TVPRA to proceed. The opinion does not announce or purport to establish new precedent beyond applying existing statutes, regulations, and cited authority to the pleadings in this case.

Show full summary ...

Angel Enrique RAMOS–MADRIGAL, et al., Plaintiff v. MENDIOLA FORESTRY SERVICE, LLC and Perfecto Mendiola, Defendants.

ROBERT T. DAWSON

Stacie Jonas, Southern Migrant Legal Services, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff. James Larry Stine, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, Stine P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT T. DAWSON, District Judge.

Currently before the Court are Defendants Mendiola Forestry Service, LLC and Perfecto Mendiola's Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (Doc. 14), and Defendants' Reply (Doc. 16). For the reasons reflected herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

Defendants request dismissal of Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–1595. Plaintiffs are Mexican migrant workers who were employed by Defendants to perform forestry work in the U.S. in 2008 and 2009. They allege that Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed Plaintiffs' H–2B visa extension documents, and in doing so violated or intended to violate the TVPRA. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violations of the TVPRA because the immigration documents Defendants allegedly concealed or possessed did not prevent Plaintiffs from leaving employment or returning home; moreover, Defendants claim that they violated no law by informing Plaintiffs that if they left employment, they would be reported to the immigration service.

Section 1592(a) of the TVPRA makes it unlawful to “knowingly ... conceal [ ] ... or possess[ ] any actual or purported passport or other immigration document, or any other actual or purported government identification document, of another person.” Section 1589(a)(3) provides that an employer who obtains labor or services “by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process ... shall be punished ...” Further, the statute defines “abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process” as “the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1589(c).

In order to state a valid claim for violations of § 1589 and § 1592 of the TVPRA, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing: (1) Defendants knowingly concealed or possessed Plaintiffs' passports or other immigration documents, and (2) this concealment was an abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process.

Dismissal is proper if Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784 (8th Cir.1979).

Defendants assert that since Plaintiffs were in possession of their passports and original H–2B visa documents, they were free to return to their original petitioning employer or home to Mexico at any time, and the fact that Defendants allegedly possessed or confiscated Plaintiffs' H–2B visa extension documents cannot constitute a violation of the TVPRA. The Court disagrees, for visa extension documents are a type of “immigration document” contemplated in § 1592(a). This is because an H–2B worker must be in possession of his visa extension paperwork in order to continue to lawfully work in the U.S. after the approved work period under the original visa has expired. A worker may legally perform migrant farm work, up to a maximum stay of one year per employer and three years total, by traveling from one employer to another using visa extensions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(c). A worker must be able to present visa extension documents in case of an inspection; otherwise, the worker cannot demonstrate that he is lawfully employed. See Changes to Requirements Affecting H–2B Nonimmigrants and Their Employers, 73 Fed.Reg. 78104 (Dec. 19, 2008) (codified at 8 C.F.R. Part 214).

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to show that in the course of Defendants' alleged concealment or possession of Plaintiffs' visa extension documents, Defendants abused or threatened to abuse the law or legal process in violation of the TVPRA. Plaintiffs pled the following in paragraphs 54–55 of their First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11): “[t]o ensure the Workers did not leave their employment with Defendants, Perfecto Mendiola told the Workers that he had the H–2B extensions but would not provide the H–2B visa extension documents to the Workers until the end of the contract, and he threatened the Workers with serious immigration consequences if they were to leave the work prior to the end of their contract ... and would report them to immigration.”

Although Defendants respond that they violated no law by merely informing Plaintiffs that they would be reported to immigration if they left their employment before the end of the contract term, the Court is required for the purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss to accept Plaintiffs' facts as true and view them in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Threatening H–2B workers with serious immigration consequences in order to prevent them from leaving employment constitutes “threatened abuse of the legal process” and states a valid claim pursuant to the TVPRA. See Ramos v. Hoyle, 2008 WL 5381821 at *4 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 19, 2008) (threatening that a worker will lose immigration status if he leaves employment constitutes abuse of the legal process); U.S. v. Garcia, 2003 WL 22956917 at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2003) (threatening “serious legal consequences, i.e., deportation” constitutes abuse of the legal process).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ramos-Madrigal v. Mendiola Forestry Serv., LLC