Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Appellant, v. Raymond F. Farrell, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, and George K. Rosenberg, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents, 431 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1970)

Appellant Giumarra Vineyards Corporation ("Giumarra") and 10 of its alien employees sued to obtain a declaration that an immigration regulation limiting the entry of certain aliens into the United States was invalid. The district court gave judgment for the Government¹  on the grounds that neither Giumarra nor the individual aliens had standing to challenge the regulation and, alternatively, that the regulation was valid. Giumarra alone perfected its appeal.

Giumarra operates a large vineyard in California's San Joaquin Valley, about 250 miles north of the border dividing this country from Mexico. At the peak of the grape harvest, it employs some 2800 field workers. About half of those employees are American citizens; the other half are aliens admitted for permanent residence and holders of "green card" documentation, alien registration receipt cards (Form 1-151).

The regulation in question forbids the use of a green card as border-crossing documentation by an alien reentering the United States for the primary purpose of working for an employer in the throes of a labor dispute.²  On July 28, 1967, the Secretary of Labor determined that Giumarra was involved in such a dispute. At various times thereafter, the individual plaintiffs left the United States, visited in Mexico, and reentered using their green cards. After they resumed their jobs with Giumarra, arrest warrants were issued against them charging violation of the regulation, and deportation proceedings were instituted against them. This action was then brought, claiming the invalidity of the regulation on statutory and constitutional grounds.

In its pleadings, Giumarra and the employee-plaintiffs claimed that the regulation was being enforced against all green-card holders, whether or not their permanent residence was in the United States. But if the Government ever took this position, it withdrew from it at trial, stating that the official interpretation of the regulation was that it applied only to aliens whose actual residence was outside the United States.³  At the close of trial the district court found that the employee-plaintiffs were not residents of Mexico, and thereafter the Government canceled the deportation proceedings against them. So far as the record now shows, no official action of any kind is still pending against these aliens. The case has become moot as to the employee-plaintiffs, and the appeal will be ordered dismissed as to them.⁴ 

To the extent that Giumarra's case rested on the threatened deportation of the employee-plaintiffs, it has likewise become moot. To the further extent that the claimed controversy was based on a contention that the regulation could not validly be applied to aliens who were United States residents, no injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate, because the Government has formally conceded that the regulation does not apply to such residents.

Nothing in the record shows that any employee of Giumarra is presently threatened with deportation. Whether or not those employees, other than the plaintiff-employees, who left their employment did so because they were Mexican residents charged with violating the regulation cannot be determined from the face of the record. Nor does the record reveal whether or not any other employees of Giumarra are Mexican residents. The district court did not reach these questions. Due to the uncertain state of the record and to the intervention of additional facts since the district court's judgment, we are unable to ascertain whether or not there remains any ripened controversy for adjudication.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the cause remanded. Giumarra should be permitted to amend its pleadings, if it can do so, to show that a controversy still exists, in light of existing facts. (Cf. Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County (1936) 299 U.S. 259, 267-268, 57 S. Ct. 202, 81 L. Ed. 178.)

The appeal of the employee-plaintiffs is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.