Christine Denise Handel and Alen Vitas v. Joseph B. Edlow and Kristi Noem

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a petition seeking to compel adjudication of an I-601 waiver application. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) barred judicial review of the alleged delay and that the Mandamus Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and Declaratory Judgment Act did not provide an alternative basis for review. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The jurisdiction-stripping provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) bars judicial review not only of an ultimate waiver decision but also of broader matters relating to the process of granting or denying the waiver, including alleged delay in adjudicating a Form I-601 application.
2. The Mandamus Act does not support plaintiffs' claim because plaintiffs could not show a clear right to relief or a clear, nondiscretionary duty requiring defendants to adjudicate the waiver application within a specified time.
3. The Administrative Procedure Act does not permit review of plaintiffs' unreasonable-delay claim because the APA supplies no independent jurisdictional basis and does not apply where statutes preclude judicial review or agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
4. The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis for plaintiffs' claim.
5. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to analyze whether the alleged delay was unreasonable under the six TRAC factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), together with 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review an alleged delay in adjudicating a Form I-601 waiver application.
2. Whether the Mandamus Act supplies jurisdiction to compel adjudication of the waiver application.
3. Whether the Administrative Procedure Act supplies a basis to review the alleged delay.
4. Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies an independent jurisdictional basis.
5. Whether the court needed to analyze the TRAC unreasonable-delay factors.

Disposition

dismissed