Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chicago v. Nielsen
878 F.3d 570
7th Cir.2017Background
- Jung Eun Lee (R-1 applicant) and Bultasa Buddhist Temple filed an I-129 in 2006 to obtain R-1 status for Lee; USCIS (CSC) delayed processing for ~4 years despite premium processing.
- CSC approved the I-129 in October 2009 with conflicting effective dates and later approved an extension that created an apparent gap in Lee’s lawful status (June 1, 2009–May 10, 2010).
- Temple’s I-360 (special immigrant religious worker) was denied because USCIS concluded Lee had worked during a period without valid status; the appeal was dismissed in 2012.
- Congressional intervention in 2013 led CSC to amend records and approve the I-360; Lee filed an I-485 to adjust status in December 2013, which USCIS later denied based on a later status gap.
- USCIS also revoked the earlier I-360 approval in 2016, citing failure to show two continuous years of qualifying work; appellants sued under the APA seeking review of the I-485 denial and the I-360 revocation.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts have jurisdiction to review denial of I-485 adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 | Lee argued the denial was reviewable under the APA | Government argued § 1252 bars judicial review of adjustment-of-status decisions | Held: No jurisdiction; § 1252(a)(2)(B) precludes review of § 1255 decisions |
| Whether courts may review revocation of an approved I-360 under 8 U.S.C. § 1155 | Temple argued revocation was arbitrary and capricious (APA § 706) and not purely discretionary because § 1155 requires “good and sufficient cause” | Government argued revocation is discretionary under § 1155 and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review | Held: No jurisdiction; revocation under § 1155 is discretionary and unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- El-Khader v. Monica, 366 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2004) (revocation of a visa petition under § 1155 is discretionary and not judicially reviewable)
- Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2007) (reaffirming that § 1155 revocations are committed to DHS discretion and are unreviewable)
- Ezekiel v. Michel, 66 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)