J.M.O. v. United States
3 F.4th 1061
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- J.M.O., a Mexican national who entered the U.S. unlawfully, obtained USCIS approval of a U-visa (I-918) and waiver (I-192) in December 2015.
- He filed an I-485 application to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m) in March 2019; USCIS denied the application in January 2020 on discretionary grounds, finding mitigating factors did not outweigh negative equities (including multiple arrests and a protective order).
- J.M.O. sought a preliminary injunction in the District of Minnesota to postpone the effective date of the denial; the district court denied the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo and affirmed the district court, holding § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars judicial review of discretionary denials under § 1255(m).
- The court rejected J.M.O.’s arguments that (1) § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not cover denials because it mentions only “granting of relief,” (2) the permissive “may” in § 1255(m) creates a nondiscretionary duty, and (3) barring review violated due process/equal protection.
- USCIS had an alternative finding that J.M.O. was not lawfully admitted as a U nonimmigrant; the court did not decide whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) would apply to a nondiscretionary denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars judicial review of USCIS denials of adjustment under § 1255(m) | § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies only to “granting” decisions and thus does not preclude review of denials | § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) covers judgments “regarding the granting of relief,” including denials; it applies whether made in removal proceedings or not | Held: § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary denials under § 1255(m) |
| Whether the term “may” in § 1255(m) makes adjustment mandatory (nondiscretionary) | “May” should be read as “shall” here, creating a nondiscretionary entitlement to adjustment if statutory criteria are met | “May” is permissive; Congress contrasted it with mandatory language elsewhere in § 1255(m), so USCIS discretion remains | Held: “may” is permissive; USCIS’s denial on humanitarian/public-interest grounds is discretionary and unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) |
| Whether barring judicial review of § 1255(m) denials violates due process or equal protection | Because immigration judges lack jurisdiction to review § 1255(m) denials, denying district-court review is an unconstitutional deprivation of rights | No constitutionally protected liberty interest exists in discretionary discretionary relief under the INA; thus statutory bar is not a colorable constitutional claim of jurisdiction | Held: Constitutional challenge rejected; no protected liberty interest in discretionary relief, so § 1252’s bar does not grant jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (administrative discretionary decisions under § 1255 and similar statutes are insulated from judicial review)
- Mutie-Timothy v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2016) (Eighth Circuit holds courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment of status)
- Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, 765 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2014) (treats § 1255 discretionary determinations like other discretionary immigration relief)
- Diallo v. Holder, 715 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2013) (no constitutionally protected liberty interest in discretionary immigration relief)
- Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2003) (same conclusion on liberty interest and discretionary relief)
- Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2017) (distinguishes discretionary denials from nondiscretionary decisions for reviewability analysis)
- Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2017) (notes statutory references to the Attorney General now refer to the Secretary of DHS)