Summary
This Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses whether federal courts have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 adjustment of status applications due to visa retrogression. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips jurisdiction over such claims because the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the Department of Homeland Security broad discretion over the adjudicative process for adjustment of status. Consequently, the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of APA claims challenging USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I‑485 applications.
- Whether the retrogression policy is within the discretionary authority granted to USCIS by 8 U.S.C. §1255(a).
Holdings
- Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprives the district court of jurisdiction over the appellants' APA claims because the delay falls within the discretionary authority granted to USCIS by §1255(a).
Key quotations
“We hold that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the appellants’ APA claims because 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) grants the DHS and USCIS discretion as to the process and resolution of adjustment of status applications.” (at 11)
““We always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction.”” (at 6)
Factual background
The appellants are Indian citizens on temporary employment‑based visas who filed EB‑2 Form I‑485 applications in December 2020 when their priority dates were current. The Department of State later retrogressed the Final Action Date, causing the applications to fall outside the cutoff. USCIS then delayed adjudication of the applications for 19 months.
Procedural history
The appellants filed Form I-485 adjustment of status applications in December 2020. While the applications were pending, the Visa Bulletin retrogressed, and USCIS delayed adjudication. The appellants sued alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B). The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal.