Third Circuit Finds that Jurisdiction Stripping Provision in 8 USC 1252 Applies Outside Removal Proceedings

The Third Circuit has determined that the jurisdiction stripping provisions in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B) apply to appeals that arise outside of the petition for review process. Accordingly, the court found that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to review a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to USCIS’s policy of holding an adjustment of status application in abeyance when the priority date retrogresses during the pendency of hte permanent residency application.

The full text of Geda v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/232195p.pdf

Ninth Circuit Issues Amended Decision on Reviewability of Bond Denial

The Ninth Circuit has issued an amended decision in Martinez v. Clark, finding that it has jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that a non-citizen is a danger to the community under an abuse of discretion standard. The court concluded that the dangerousness determination is a mixed question of fact and law.

The full text of Martinez v. Clark can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/27/21-35023.pdf

SCOTUS Determines that Revocation of Visa Petition Approvals are not Challengeable in Federal Court

The Supreme Court has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s revocation of an approved visa petition. In so doing, the Court indicated that the revocation statute defines a purely discretion decision by the agency - that the agency is not obligated to revoke the approval of a petition that was approved in error.

The full text of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-583_onjq.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review District Court Remand Order

The Fourth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to review an order from the District Court remanding a delayed naturalization application to the agency. “Simply stating the standard may be enough to explain why it is not met here. The district court’s remand order did not ‘end the litigation on the merits’ of Dubon’s naturalization petition. It did the opposite: It declined to address the merits at all, and instead provided for further adjudication of the merits before the agency. When the district court issued its order, in other words, a determination on the crucial issue in this litigation – Dubon’s eligibility to naturalize – was yet to come. And because that question remained ‘open’ and ‘unfinished,’ the district court’s § 1447(b) remand was not a ‘final decision’ as that term generally is defined under § 1291.”

The full text of Dubon v. Jaddou can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222280.P.pdf

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms that it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Timeliness of Asylum Application

The Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that an asylum application is untimely and does not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline.  The court concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerero-Lasprilla and Wilkinson did not mandate a contrary conclusion.

The full text of APA v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202110496.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Asylee Adjustment

The Fourth Circuit has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review the denial of an asylee adjustment of status application under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

The full text of Shaiban v. Jaddou can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/212010.P.pdf

Supreme Court Finds Hardship Determinations are Reviewable in Federal Court

The Supreme Court has determined that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard in non-LPR cancellation of removal cases is a mixed question of fact and law, subject to federal court review. “The facts underlying any determination on cancellation of removal therefore remain unreviewable. For instance, an IJ’s factfinding on credibility, the seriousness of a family member’s medical condition, or the level of financial support a noncitizen currently provides remain unreviewable. Only the question whether those established facts satisfy the statutory eligibility standard is subject to judicial review. Because this mixed question is primarily factual, that review is deferential.”

The full text of Wilkinson v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666diff_f2bh.pdf

Seventh Circuit Defines Timeline for Judicial Review of Reinstatement Orders

The Seventh Circuit has determined that a reinstatement order is final for judicial review at the completion of withholding only proceedings.

The full text of FJAP v. Garland can be found here:

https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D02-27/C:21-2284:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:3174081:S:0

Eleventh Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review Revocation of I-130

The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s revocation of an approved Form I-130.

The full text of Bouarfa v. Secretary of DHS can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212429.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction over Withholding/CAT Proceedings

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a reinstatement order is a final order of removal, and therefore, a petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of that order. The existence of an ongoing withholding/CAT only proceedings does not toll the deadline for filing that petition for review.

The full text of Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60307-CV0.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review Factual Findings Related to Procedural Motion Related to Adjustment Application

The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to review any factual findings related to a motion to continue proceedings when the findings relate to an applicant’s eligibility for adjustment of status.

The full text of Ochoa v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/20/20-72510.pdf

An amended opinion can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/02/06/20-72510.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Motion to Remand in Non-LPR Cancellation Appeal

The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to remand to consider additional hardship evidence in a non-LPR cancellation of removal application.

The full text of Perez v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60074-CV0.pdf

First Circuit Finds that Good Faith Marriage Determination is Mixed Question of Fact and Law

The First Circuit has determined that the good faith marriage determination required by an I-751 waiver is a mixed question of fact and law, which the court maintains jurisdiction to review. The court noted the underlying factual findings would not be reviewable.

The full text of Alzaben v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1561P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review USCIS Denial of Adjustment of Status

The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of an adjustment of status application for someone who has not been placed in removal proceedings, on the theory that the person may be able to renew the application at a future date if such proceedings commence.

The full text of Elldakli v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-20344-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction over Discretionary Denial of LPR Cancellation

The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents, and that the factors in Matter of C-V-T- do not provide a legal standard sufficient for federal court review.

The full text of Ayala Chapa v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60039-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit Finds that Jurisdictional Statute Precludes Review of USCIS Denial of Adjustment Application

The Seventh Circuit has determined that district courts have no jurisdiction to review denials of adjustment of status applications, precluding any judicial review of arriving alien adjustments, U visa adjustments, and T visa adjustments.

The full text of Britkovyy v. Mayorkas can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2023/D02-17/C:21-3160:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:3004080:S:0

Sixth Circuit Says Good Moral Character is a Mixed Question of Fact and Law

The Sixth Circuit has determined that whether a non-citizen lacks good moral character is a mixed question of fact and law that the a federal appellate court has jurisdiction to review, though it reserved the question of what standard of review applies.

The full text of Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0019p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit Finds Jurisdiction to Review Good Moral Character Determination Based on Undisputed Facts

The Seventh Circuit has determined that the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland does not strip it of jurisdiction to review the agency’s negative good moral character determination in connection with an application for cancellation of removal when the determination is based on undisputed facts.

The full text of Cruz-Velasco v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2023/D01-24/C:21-1642:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2992048:S:0

Ninth Circuit Confirms that District Court has no Authority to Enjoin Removal

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a District Court has no jurisdiction to stay removal of a non-citizen who has a motion to reopen pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“Matias asserts that applying the plain text of § 1252(g) and refusing to enter a stay of removal pending the resolution of his motion to reopen would deprive a noncitizen [of] his statutory right to file a motion to reopen. But that’s not true. Matias’s motion to reopen has already been filed, and is currently pending before the BIA. Once the BIA decides that motion, Matias will be able to file a petition for our court to review that final agency action—including review of the BIA’s denial of his request for a stay of removal pending its decision. Matias has taken full advantage of his statutory rights and will continue to have access to the process guaranteed to him under the statute even if he is removed.”

The court further determined that “the Suspension Clause does not preserve judicial review in this case because only an extreme and unwarranted expansion of the habeas writ would encompass Matias’s requested relief.”

The full text of Matias Rauda v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/12/12/21-16062.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses Authority to Issue Injunction

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the jurisdiction stripping provision at 8 USC 1252(f)(1) does not affect a court’s authority to issue an injunction requiring USCIS to timely adjudicate SIJS petitions because section 235(d)(2) of the TVPRA (which contains the relevant SIJS provisions) was passed after the effective date of IIRIRA.

The full text of Moreno Galvez v. Jaddou can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/11/03/20-36052.pdf