Case Explained: MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 Docket: 2:25-cv-09814-FMO-PVC The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of Jaime Melendez’s lawsuit challenging the rescission of a job offer as an ICE transportation officer. The appellate court held that the district court erred in dismissing Melendez’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) does not preclude judicial review for individuals who are applicants for employment with private contractors rather than federal employees. Consequently, the sua sponte dismissal of the APA claim was deemed premature because it was not frivolous to argue that the CSRA’s preclusive scheme did not apply to this class of persons. Regarding the Title VII claim, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend. The court applied the standard that Title VII governs relations between employers and employees, not third parties, and found Melendez’s theory—that a private contractor ratified ICE’s suitability determination—fell outside recognized circumstances for imputing third-party liability, such as principal-agent relationships or an employer’s failure to take corrective action. Furthermore, the complaint lacked allegations that ICE’s decision constituted actionable discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to reconsider, noting that such motions cannot be used to raise new procedural due process arguments for the first time when they could have been raised earlier via a motion to amend. On remand, the district court is required to proceed with Melendez’s APA claim while maintaining the dismissal of the Title VII claim. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.