Corina Garcia Albarron, et al. v. Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 11-16073 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-16073 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-16073 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-03261-CAP CORINA GARCIA ALBARRAN, MARIA LOURDES SEGOBIANO-DE SOTO, LUIS MAGANA, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF DRIVER SERVICES, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CHAIR, COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SHERIFF, COBB COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (July 12, 2012) Before EDMONDSON, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges. Case: 11-16073 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Corina Garcia Albarran, Maria Lourdes Segobiano-DeSoto, and Luis Magana appeal the dismissal of this action against John Morton, Greg Dozier, Tim Lee and Neil Warren for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought to have certain agreements between United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local Georgia law enforcement agencies declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting, inter alia, that plaintiffs had no standing to bring this action because they could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement by showing an imminent risk of future harm to them. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs filed this appeal. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record in this case. We have also examined the district court s opinion in which it thoughtfully and completely considered whether plaintiffs could show the requisite injury-in-fact for standing. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have not made that showing. Since we find no legal error in the district court s opinion and agree with its analysis and conclusions on this issue, we shall affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of that opinion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing this case is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
