106 F.4th 388
5th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs are Indian nationals lawfully present in the U.S. on employment-based visas, seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.
- Plaintiffs' applications (Form I-485) were filed when the Department of State (DOS) estimated visa numbers were available; retrogression later rendered them ineligible, and their applications were held until visa numbers became available again.
- Plaintiffs challenged the policies of DOS and USCIS that defer adjudication of applications when visa numbers are not immediately available (the "retrogression hold policies").
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing these policies violate the controlling statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), and the APA.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction and the plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- Key procedural question: whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the challenge due to jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the INA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the INA permit federal court review of agency delay/retrogression policy in status adjustment? | Deferring adjudication until visa numbers are available violates clear statutory language | Discretionary actions under §1255(a) are unreviewable per §1252(a)(2)(B) | No jurisdiction; INA strips court authority to review discretionary status adjustment actions |
| Are retrogression hold policies beyond federal court review under §1252(a)(2)(B)? | Only applies to removal decisions, and not to status adjustment delays | Applies to all discretionary actions under §1255, not limited to removals | Applies broadly; court cannot review the "retrogression hold policies" |
| Does the APA provide a cause of action for unreasonable delay in this context? | DOS and USCIS must act on applications without unreasonable delay per APA | APA is trumped by INA’s jurisdiction-stripping language | Jurisdiction-stripping language overrides the APA; no jurisdiction |
| Does recent reversal of retrogression/mootness affect the court's ability to decide? | Plaintiffs harmed by delay, time lost for citizenship process | Some applications approved, retrogression reversed, so case is moot | Court found it could address the jurisdiction question; focused only on subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (Supreme Court broadly interprets §1252 to bar review of discretionary immigration actions)
- LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405 (Fifth Circuit distinguishes between immigrant and nonimmigrant status)
- Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549 (Fifth Circuit explaining adjustment of status process)