Aaron Camacho Perez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24027
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Aaron Camacho Perez, a Cuban national who presented a Cuban birth certificate but was allegedly born in Venezuela, applied under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) to adjust status; USCIS denied his 2009 and 2012 applications as he was found inadmissible for using a fraudulent birth certificate.
- Perez was placed in removal proceedings as an “arriving alien”; an IJ purportedly sustained a fraud finding and ordered removal in 2010; Perez waived appeal of that IJ order.
- Perez sued USCIS and DHS officials in district court under the APA and related statutes seeking review of USCIS’s statutory-eligibility determination under the CAA; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Perez failed to exhaust administrative remedies (he waived appeal and did not seek reopening of the IJ fraud finding) and that adjustment is discretionary.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding USCIS’s statutory-eligibility determination was a final agency action reviewable under the APA because (1) Perez was an arriving alien and the IJ/BIA lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate or re-adjudicate his CAA eligibility, and (2) neither INA § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) nor the agency regulation barring appeals of CAA denials precluded district-court APA review of the legal eligibility determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction under the APA to review USCIS’s statutory-eligibility determination for CAA adjustment | Perez: USCIS’s denial was a final agency action and reviewable in district court; IJ/BIA lacked authority because he is an arriving alien | Government: Perez failed to exhaust administrative remedies; IJ’s fraud finding and waiver preclude district-court review; adjustment is discretionary | Court: Reversed — USCIS decision was final and reviewable; IJ/BIA lacked jurisdiction, so exhaustion did not bar APA review |
| Whether the IJ’s purported fraud determination is preclusive | Perez: IJ lacked jurisdiction to decide CAA eligibility, so IJ determination has no preclusive effect | Government: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of fraud finding | Court: IJ lacked jurisdiction over CAA eligibility; therefore collateral estoppel does not apply |
| Whether statutory/regulatory provisions strip district-court review of USCIS CAA eligibility determinations | Perez: CAA and regulations do not preclude APA review of a legal eligibility determination | Government: INA jurisdiction-stripping and 8 C.F.R. provisions bar district-court review | Court: §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not necessarily apply because CAA is separate from §1255; regulations barring appeals interpret only intra-agency appeals and do not preclude APA suits |
| Whether dismissal may be affirmed for failure to state a claim (alternative ground) | — (not pursued on appeal) | Government: dismissal can be affirmed because claim fails as a matter of law | Court: Declined to decide on appeal; left for district court to address in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellant abandons issues not raised on appeal)
- Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes discretionary relief from legal eligibility determinations; final agency action under APA reviewable when no other adequate remedy exists)
- Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (explains ‘‘arriving alien’’ rule and USCIS exclusive jurisdiction over arriving-aliens’ adjustment applications)
- Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 578 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009) (doctrine of collateral estoppel / issue preclusion)
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (federal-question jurisdiction supports APA review)