62 F.4th 578
D.C. Cir.2023Background
- Dr. Adil Abuzeid, a dual U.K./Saudi citizen, entered the U.S. on a J-1 visa for graduate medical training; J-1 holders must generally spend two aggregate years in their country of nationality or last residence after training under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e).
- Abuzeid filed two § 1255 adjustment-of-status applications (employment-based and later family-based via a U.S. citizen spouse); USCIS denied both for failing to show the required two years in the U.K., refusing to aggregate time spent in Saudi Arabia and the U.K., and finding the U.K. residency evidence inadequate.
- Abuzeid and his wife sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review and approval of the applications; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
- The district court dismissed; on appeal the panel held (after Patel v. Garland) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars district-court review of any judgment regarding granting relief under § 1255, including USCIS determinations outside removal proceedings.
- The court affirmed dismissal, explaining Patel’s broad construction of the jurisdictional bar and concluding the APA claim is precluded; the panel noted the only judicial review avenue for constitutional/ legal claims is in removal proceedings under § 1252(a)(2)(D), and that administrative remedies (resubmission or waiver) remain available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may review USCIS denials of adjustment-of-status under the APA | Abuzeid: The agency’s denial was a nondiscretionary eligibility/legal question (aggregation of residency days) and thus reviewable | Govt: § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction over any judgment re: § 1255, regardless of removal proceedings | Court: Bar applies; APA challenge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Patel v. Garland’s holding is limited to judgments in removal proceedings | Abuzeid: Patel limited to IJ/removal context; APA suits against USCIS remain reviewable | Govt: The statute’s “regardless” clause and Patel support applying the bar to agency decisions outside removal proceedings | Court: Rejects limitation; applies Patel and the “regardless” clause to bar review |
| Whether the presumption of judicial review is overcome here | Abuzeid: Presumption requires clear evidence; not met | Govt: Plain statutory text and Patel provide clear and convincing evidence Congress intended the bar | Court: Presumption overcome; jurisdictional bar is clear |
| Whether any judicial remedy remains | Abuzeid: Seeks district-court relief under APA | Govt: Judicial review only via removal proceedings (§1252(a)(2)(D)); administrative remedies (resubmission, waiver) remain | Court: District-court APA relief unavailable; review possible in removal proceedings or via waiver/resubmission |
Key Cases Cited
- Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022) (construing §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to bar review of “any judgment” under §1255)
- Meza v. Renaud, 9 F.4th 930 (2021) (describing §1255 adjustment-of-status framework)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (distinguishing eligibility for relief from discretionary grant of relief)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (explaining presumption of judicial review and the clear-and-convincing standard to overcome it)
- Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021) (Supreme Court decision addressing an APA challenge to USCIS denial of adjustment of status)
- Lee v. USCIS, 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that §1252(a)(2)(D) applies only in removal proceedings and interpreting “regardless” clause)