FOLLOWING the dismissal of his lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Denis Uvarov, a 33-year-old Russian national, told the federal court that he should have been directed to the specific court that could hear a foreigner’s claims based on the Universal Human Rights Declaration.
Denis Uvarov
In his motion for reconsideration emailed to the District Court for the NMI, he said his claims should have been directed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
He said by closing his case and leaving him without other options, the district court “violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“I am in emotional and mental stress now because from the very beginning you or your helpers did not officially inform me that the US Court of Federal Claims exists for cases like mine,” he told the district court.
“Your court is professionally aware of [the] U.S. Court of Federal Claims and knew the content of my claim. So from the very beginning your court wrongly applied a long, not-to-the-point process, instead [of] ordering me to change the venue from the very beginning,” Uvarov added.
He said he should be compensated for his claims and that he would appeal Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “if need be.”
On April 23, 2021, Judge Manglona dismissed with prejudice all of Uvarov’s federal and state claims other than the Fifth Amendment due process violation claim for injunctive relief.
Judge Manglona stated that Uvarov may not renew these claims in any amended pleadings with the court.
She added, “Plaintiff may not add any new claims without first filing a motion and obtaining the court’s permission to amend his complaint to add new claims in the initial action.”
She also “reiterates to plaintiff that he may not continuously file new in forma pauperis applications and new complaints related to this matter, as doing so will be an abuse of the court’s process, and the court may declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant such that the clerk will be directed to no longer accept further filings outside of this case and that are related to this pending matter.”
Uvarov filed his motion for reconsideration on May 6, 2021.
He had earlier asked the court for an order directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to return his passport. He also demanded $80,000 in compensation for his suffering and for punitive damages.
Uvarov named officials from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security as defendants.
But DHS and USCIS, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Districts of Guam and NMI, have asked the court to dismiss Uvarov’s complaint, saying that his passport was released to him on Feb. 8, 2021, and therefore his Fifth Amendment claim for injunctive relief was moot.
On March 19, 2021, Uvarov was observed boarding a plane outbound to Seoul, South Korea, according a U.S. government lawyer. Uvarov also told an ICE agent that he intended to travel to Ukraine.
Judge Manglona had dismissed without prejudice the claims of Uvarov for personal injury and demand for $80,000 in damages.
In his complaint, Uvarov, who represented himself, said he arrived in the CNMI in November 2017. He said when he sought asylum, ICE confiscated his passport in June 2018.
After waiting for two years and never having received an asylum interview, he said he had changed his mind.
On July 10, 2020, Uvarov demanded that his passport be returned so that he could return home.
Uvarov filed a complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, but the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction on Oct. 26, 2020.
On Dec. 2, 2020, he filed an amended complaint which included copies of his formal request for the return of original documents filed on July 9, 2020 with USCIS.
He filed the amended complaint on the same day he received an email from USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office,hich informed him that “we are unable to schedule non detained interviews in Saipan at this time…. When we are able to resume interviews you will be contacted and scheduled for an interview.”
Citing previous rulings, Judge Manglona said Uvarov’s claims for monetary relief are not permitted under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
As for Uvarov’s request for the return of his passport, Judge Manglona reiterated her previous ruling that the Administrative Procedure Act limits the court’s jurisdiction to review agency actions to those that are reviewable by statute or to those that are not final.
