Case: Revelis v. Napolitano

1:11-cv-01991 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: March 23, 2011

Closed Date: Sept. 20, 2012

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This action was brought on March 23, 2011, by a married couple who sought an order allowing the U.S. citizen spouse to petition for his foreign national husband to become a permanent resident of the United States. Such petition is allowed for heterosexual spouses, but under the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), not for same-sex spouses. The U.S. citizen plaintiff filed his visa petition on January 9, 2011; when he brought the lawsuit, it had not been acted on. But they pointed out tha…

This action was brought on March 23, 2011, by a married couple who sought an order allowing the U.S. citizen spouse to petition for his foreign national husband to become a permanent resident of the United States. Such petition is allowed for heterosexual spouses, but under the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), not for same-sex spouses.

The U.S. citizen plaintiff filed his visa petition on January 9, 2011; when he brought the lawsuit, it had not been acted on. But they pointed out that the position of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was that because of DOMA, it lacked authority to allow a spousal petition for a same-sex couple. Likewise, the Board of Immigration Appeals could not hold DOMA unconstitutional. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought relief by the district court.

On January 5, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (Judge Harry D. Leinenweber), found that the plaintiffs could proceed with their lawsuit even though USCIS had not yet rendered a final decision on the visa application. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1330, at *16. On July 12, the Court stayed the matter to give USCIS sufficient time to adjudicate the application. USCIS reached its decision on August 6, 2012, and informed the Court the following week that it was denying the visa, both because of DOMA and separately (and alone sufficient, the government said) for other, unrelated reasons. Those non-DOMA reasons were explained in a document filed under seal.

On September 20, 2012, the Court granted the U.S.'s oral motion to dismiss without prejudice. Presumably this was with the agreement of the plaintiff, but no further details appear in the case record.

Summary Authors

Claire Lally (3/13/2015)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5561999/parties/revelis-v-napolitano/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Benno, Heather M. (District of Columbia)

Burton, Justin Russell (Illinois)

Cobb, Erin Christine (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

Carlson, Jesi J. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:11-cv-01991

Docket

Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Docket
1

1:11-cv-01991

Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief

March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011

Complaint
34

91-00011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Jan. 5, 2012

Jan. 5, 2012

Order/Opinion
60

1:11-cv-01991

Statement

July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012

Pleading / Motion / Brief
62

1:11-cv-01991

NOTICE OF AGENCY ACTION AND MOTION FOR AN EARLIER STATUS HEARING

Aug. 13, 2012

Aug. 13, 2012

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5561999/revelis-v-napolitano/

Last updated Feb. 21, 2024, 3:01 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
34

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 1/5/2012:Mailed notice(wp, )

Jan. 5, 2012

Jan. 5, 2012

RECAP
60

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 7/12/2012:The Government Defendants' motion to stay proceedings for 90 days is granted. A status hearing set for 10/16/2012 at 9:00 a.m. Should USCIS' decision on the Plaintiff's visa petition be finalized before that time, the parties are hereby ordered to file a motion for an earlier status date. Mailed notice(wp, )

July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Same-Sex Marriage

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 23, 2011

Closing Date: Sept. 20, 2012

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Plaintiffs are two men, married in the State of Iowa; one is a U.S. citizen and the other is a foreign national.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Unknown

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

Issues

General:

Marriage

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-basis:

Sexual orientation

Immigration/Border:

Family Separation

Visas - criteria