Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s claims seeking to compel adjudication of his delayed I-485 application for adjustment of status. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of jurisdiction over claims challenging the pace of discretionary adjustment-of-status proceedings and granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims alleging unreasonable delay in adjudicating an I-485 adjustment-of-status application.
- Whether Plaintiff's claims concerning an employment authorization document became moot after he received the document.
Holdings
- Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims challenging the pace at which USCIS adjudicates an I-485 adjustment-of-status application because the timing and actions involved in the discretionary adjustment process are committed to executive discretion.
- Plaintiff's claims concerning his employment authorization document were moot after he received the requested document and were dismissed without prejudice.
Key quotations
“Federal courts are not a fallback forum for disappointed applicants midstream in their administrative process. Nor does the APA license advisory opinions or premature refereeing of unfinished agency business.”
Factual background
Hamzat Abdulhammed Kanmi, a Nigerian national residing in the United States, filed an I-485 application seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. He alleged that USCIS and its officials unreasonably delayed adjudicating the application and asserted claims under the APA and Mandamus Act. He later received his employment authorization document, rendering his EAD-related claims moot.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, a Nigerian national awaiting adjudication of an I-485 application for adjustment of status, sued USCIS and several officials under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act, alleging unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay. Defendants argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of jurisdiction over claims challenging the pace of adjudication of adjustment applications. The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims without prejudice, and closed the case. Claims concerning an employment authorization document were separately dismissed without prejudice as moot after Plaintiff received the document.