Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ali Aghakasiri’s action seeking to compel USCIS to reopen and adjudicate his EB-2 immigrant petition and national-interest-waiver request. The court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act precludes judicial review of the discretionary denial of a national-interest waiver and that Aghakasiri’s asserted procedural challenges were ultimately disputes over the agency’s weighing of evidence. The court also concluded that any ultra vires claim was inadequately pleaded and, in any event, unavailable because judicial review was expressly precluded.
Holdings
- The INA precludes judicial review of the Attorney General's discretionary decision to grant or deny a national-interest waiver, so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Aghakasiri's APA claims challenging that denial.
- A plaintiff may not circumvent the jurisdictional bar by repackaging a substantive disagreement with the agency's discretionary decision as a procedural challenge; Aghakasiri's claims required the court to reweigh the evidence and therefore were not reviewable pure questions of law.
- Aghakasiri did not adequately plead an ultra vires claim, and any such claim would fail because judicial review was expressly precluded by statute and the proposed ultra vires theory merely repackaged his APA challenge.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act strips federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction to review USCIS's discretionary denial of a national-interest waiver.
- Whether Aghakasiri's alleged failures to engage with evidence, explain a change in position, apply the evidentiary regulations properly, and provide reasoned analysis were reviewable pure questions of law or impermissible attempts to reweigh the evidence.
- Whether Aghakasiri adequately pleaded an ultra vires claim and, if so, whether ultra vires review was available despite the statutory bar on judicial review.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (29)
- Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Arab v. Blinken, 600 F. Supp. 3d 59 (D.D.C. 2022)(followed)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)(followed)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)(followed)
- Green v. Stuyvesant, 505 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2007)(followed)
- Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2010)(followed)
- Jerome Stevens Pharms. v. Food & Drug Admin., 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 29.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.