from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas
JOLLY, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
C. HO, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
Flores claims he is a United States citizen based on his
birth in the United States. When Flores attempted to renew
his United States passport, however, his application was
denied. So he filed suit in the Southern District of Texas
seeking a declaration of citizenship under 8 U.S.C. §
1503(a). The district court dismissed his suit for lack of
jurisdiction, based on insufficient evidence that Flores
actually resides in Texas. The district court also rejected
his claim for injunctive relief under the Administrative
Procedure Act on the ground that § 1503(a) provides an
adequate remedy. We affirm.
Flores has a birth certificate indicating that he was born in
McAllen, Texas, in October 1962. But his parents also
registered his birth in Mexico, so that, according to Flores,
he could attend school there.
2015, Flores sought to renew his U.S. passport, but the State
Department denied his application and revoked his existing
passport. Flores filed suit in the Southern District of
Texas, asserting claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and the
APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and seeking a judicial declaration
of his United States citizenship. See Flores v. United
States, No. 7:16-cv-00488 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2016).
question of where Flores was residing quickly overshadowed
the litigation. This question is of primary importance
because § 1503(a) requires actions to "be filed in
the district court of the United States for the district in
which such person resides or claims a residence, and
jurisdiction over such officials in such cases is conferred
upon those courts." Following limited jurisdictional
discovery, Flores voluntarily dismissed that suit.
that year, Flores re-filed in the Southern District of Texas,
claiming that he "has his residence within the
jurisdiction of [the] Court." The government moved to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure
to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (3),
(6). It argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction
over Flores's § 1503(a) claim because he resided in
Kansas, not Texas. And it argued that the court lacked
jurisdiction over Flores's APA claim because §
1503(a) provided an adequate alternative avenue of relief.
parties submitted evidence attempting to establish the
district in which Flores resided. The defendants showed that,
in August 2015, Flores had changed his address from Texas to
Kansas, when he began employment at a university in Emporia.
In July 2016, he and his wife purchased a home in Emporia,
which they still own. And online university records showed
that Flores was scheduled to teach classes on-campus in
Emporia in the spring and fall of 2018.
did not deny this evidence. Instead, he asserted that he
leased apartments and was physically present in Texas from
May 2017 to December 23, 2017, during which time he filed
this lawsuit. He attempted to establish his presence in Texas
by submitting lease documents for the Texas apartments and
credit card statements showing purchases in Texas during that
district court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed Flores's complaint without prejudice. The court
found that Flores had not met his burden of proving residency
in the Southern District of Texas for purposes of §
1503(a). The court also denied jurisdiction over Flores's
APA claim because § 1503(a) provided Flores an adequate
review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1) de novo. See Musselwhite v. State Bar