2476-Cv, 809 F.3d 721

Mantena, an Indian citizen on an H-1B visa, pursued adjustment of status to a green card with an employer-based I-140 petition and AC21 portability.
Her original employer (VSG) obtained an alien labor certification and I-140; Mantena later ported to a successor employer (CNC Consulting) while I-485 remained pending.
A separate VSG fraud incident prompted USCIS to revoke VSG’s petitions, including Mantena’s I-140, without informing Mantena or CNC.
NOIR of Mantena’s I-140 revocation was sent only to VSG; Mantena learned of the revocation only after her I-485 was denied in 2012.
Mantena sued in district court challenging the revocation and denial as to statutory/regulatory notice and sought fees; district court dismissed some claims and granted judgment on the pleadings on others.
The Second Circuit vacated, holding jurisdiction exists to review procedural claims, requiring notice to the beneficiary or successor employer under AC21, and remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1252(a)(2) precludes review of procedural challenges	Mantena asserts review is available for procedural failures in revocation.	Government contends §1252 strips review of discretionary decisions in full.	Procedural challenges are reviewable; jurisdiction exists.
Whether Mantena has standing to challenge notice	Mantena has Article III and statutory standing as a post-porting beneficiary.	Agency argued lack of standing under its regulatory framework.	Mantena has Article III and statutory standing.
Whether notice is required to post-porting beneficiaries or successor employers	AC21 portability requires notice to affected parties beyond the original petitioner.	Regulations only require notice to the petitioner; beneficiary not protected.	Notice must be provided to the appropriate party beyond the original petitioner; exact recipient to be determined on remand.
Scope of remand and who should receive notice	Regulatory and statutory readings support broader notice to beneficiaries/successors.	No clear regulatory directive; district court should interpret on remand.	Remand to determine the precise recipients and further regulatory/APA considerations.

Firstland International, Inc. v. U.S. INS, 377 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) (mandatory notice requirements can govern revocation even if substantive decision is discretionary)
Kurapati v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (beneficiary standing in post-AC21 revocation cases)
Rajasekaran v. Hazuda, 806 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2015) (regulatory procedures review potentially available despite discretion over outcome)
Manguriu v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2015) (agency must follow its own regulations; regulatory review permitted)
Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 783 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2015) (standing to challenge revocation and scope of regulatory protections)
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (Supreme Court, 2014) (standing zone of interests clarified (limits not applicable to jurisdiction in this context))
Furlong v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 2001) (judicial review of administrative action and scope of non-delegation in notices)
King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (U.S. 2015) (statutory interpretation to avoid unintended consequences)
Patel v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 732 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2013) (portability provisions reflect congressional intent to protect beneficiaries)