Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of Danuta Dec’s challenge to USCIS’s denial of an inadmissibility waiver. The court held that waiver eligibility determinations are committed to agency discretion and that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) precludes judicial review of all agency decisions regarding such waivers. The court also publicly admonished Dec’s attorney for non-existent case citations and a false quotation in the opening brief, but imposed no further sanction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review USCIS's determination that Dec was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).
- Whether the Administrative Procedure Act's presumption of judicial reviewability permitted review of the USCIS waiver eligibility determination.
- Whether the court should impose sanctions beyond admonishing Dec's attorney for non-existent citations and a false quotation in the opening brief.
Holdings
- Threshold eligibility determinations for waivers of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) are committed to agency discretion and are not judicially reviewable.
- The prohibition that '[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by [the agency] regarding a waiver' encompasses all agency decisions relating to a waiver application, including threshold eligibility determinations based on an interpretation of another immigration statute.
- The court admonished Dec's counsel for including non-existent citations and a false quotation but imposed no additional sanction.
Key quotations
“By enacting § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v)’s broad jurisdiction-stripping language, Congress precluded judicial review of all waiver eligibility determinations, even those based on agency policies interpreting other immigration statutes.” (10)
“Put simply, “[n]o review means no review; the statute does not need to list all of the many potential legal theories that are not reviewable.”” (10)
“Threshold eligibility determinations are committed to agency discretion. Moreover, all decisions relating to such waivers—even if based in legal conclusions—are judicially unreviewable.” (14)
Factual background
Dec, a Polish citizen, was approved for a family-based visa in 2009 based on a petition filed by her U.S.-citizen sister. Because Dec had been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year, she was subject to a ten-year inadmissibility bar. After Dec's lawful-permanent-resident mother died in May 2020, Dec applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), invoking 8 U.S.C. § 1154(l); USCIS denied the application because Dec's sister, not her mother, was the qualifying relative connected to the visa petition.
Procedural history
USCIS denied Dec's application for a waiver of inadmissibility and later denied her motion to reopen or reconsider. Dec sought declaratory and APA relief in the Northern District of Illinois, challenging her eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(l) and the agency's waiver decision. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.