Summary
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an APA challenge brought by Indian nationals seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate their pending green card applications. The court held that subject-matter jurisdiction was precluded by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions. The court concluded that USCIS's Adjudication Hold Policy, which delays processing when immigrant visa numbers are unavailable due to retrogression, falls squarely within the Secretary of Homeland Security's statutorily granted discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to USCIS's Adjudication Hold Policy and the delay in adjudicating adjustment-of-status applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
- Whether the APA independently confers subject-matter jurisdiction over the Gedas' claims.
- Whether the statutory jurisdictional bar applies even though the challenge arose outside removal proceedings and was characterized as a challenge to agency inaction or a pure question of statutory interpretation.
Holdings
- Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars federal-court jurisdiction over the Gedas' challenge to USCIS's decision to place their adjustment-of-status applications on hold and to the process prescribed for reaching that decision, because 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) expressly commits adjustment of status and the regulations governing that process to the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretion.
- The Administrative Procedure Act does not independently confer subject-matter jurisdiction, and its waiver of sovereign immunity and causes of action do not overcome the INA's express jurisdictional bar.
- Section 1252(a)(2)(B)'s jurisdictional limitation applies regardless of whether the challenged action arose in removal proceedings and encompasses USCIS's decision to hold applications rather than issue a final adjudication.
Key quotations
“The Adjudication Hold Policy is an exercise of that statutorily specified discretion, so we are jurisdictionally barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) from reviewing Gedas’ claims.” (17)
“The order of the District Court will be affirmed.” (18)
Factual background
The Gedas, married Indian nationals lawfully residing in the United States on employment-based nonimmigrant visas, filed applications to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents. Their employment-based priority date became current for an EB-3 visa, and later they sought to transfer the applications to an approved EB-2 petition. After the Department of State exhausted available EB-2 visas and retrogressed the relevant cutoff date, USCIS placed their pending applications on hold under its Adjudication Hold Policy. The Gedas sued to compel adjudication and invalidate the policy, contending that it unlawfully required visa availability at the time of approval rather than filing.
Procedural history
The Gedas filed amended claims under APA § 706(1), alleging unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay in adjudicating their employment-based adjustment-of-status applications. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars federal-court review of the discretionary adjustment-of-status process and the Adjudication Hold Policy.