Jafarzadeh v. Duke
270 F. Supp. 3d 296
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Manouchehr (Iranian, lawfully present) and his U.S. citizen daughter Razeyeh filed I-130/I-485 in 2010; USCIS granted the daughter’s petition but delayed then denied Manouchehr’s adjustment application after many years.
- Plaintiffs allege USCIS routed certain applications into a secret program called CARRP (Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program) that delays/denies benefits, based on Terrorism Screening Database designations and interagency inputs (e.g., FBI).
- Plaintiffs sued in district court (mandamus, INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims), seeking an order barring CARRP, relief to have USCIS adjudicate without CARRP, and other remedies.
- After suit, USCIS adjudicated the daughter’s petition (approved) and denied Manouchehr’s adjustment; the government moved to dismiss as moot or unripe and for failure to state claims.
- The court held (1) claims seeking only an order compelling USCIS to act are moot, (2) district court jurisdiction exists for collateral challenges to agency procedures (McNary line), (3) INA-based mandamus claim dismissed, (4) APA notice-and-comment challenge (finality) not resolved on the record and left for further proceedings, and (5) the procedural due process claim was dismissed for failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of claims compelling USCIS to act | Relief sought includes ruling that CARRP is unlawful and remand; not limited to compel action | USCIS adjudicated the applications, so mandamus/compel claims are moot | Compel/mandamus claims dismissed as moot to extent they only seek prompt adjudication; other collateral claims not moot |
| Ripeness / jurisdiction / exhaustion (challenge to CARRP) | Collateral constitutional and APA challenges to procedures are outside §1252 review scheme and thus justiciable in district court (McNary) | Review of adjustment denials must proceed administratively and in the court of appeals; district court lacks jurisdiction | Court adopts McNary approach: collateral challenges to procedures (CARRP) are not channelled into §1252 and may proceed in district court |
| INA / mandamus remedy for alleged unlawful delegation (Count II) | Seek relief via mandamus or ultra vires review to block CARRP’s outsourcing of adjudicative authority | INA doesn’t create private right to challenge adjudication process; mandamus unavailable where APA provides remedy | Dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim because APA provides the appropriate avenue |
| APA notice-and-comment / final agency action (Count V) | CARRP is a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment; challenge is reviewable under APA | CARRP is not a final agency action (and may be non-reviewable) | Court denies motion to dismiss Count V without prejudice due to insufficient factual record on CARRP’s form/finality |
| Procedural due process (Count IV) | Plaintiff has right to lawful adjudication of application (notice/opportunity to challenge reliance on terrorism watchlist/CARRP) | Adjustment is discretionary; no protected property or liberty interest so no due process claim | Due process claim dismissed for failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest |
Key Cases Cited
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., 498 U.S. 479 (Sup. Ct.) (district court may hear collateral challenges to agency procedures even where statute channels review of final decisions)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.) (two-part test for final agency action under APA)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (Sup. Ct.) (special statutory review schemes and when claims must be channelled administratively)
- Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (effective judicial review as touchstone for McNary/Thunder Basin analysis)
- Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir.) (factors for determining whether a statutory review scheme is exclusive)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Sup. Ct.) (case-or-controversy / standing principles)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (Sup. Ct.) (mootness and live controversy requirement)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct.) (mootness and doctrines like voluntary cessation/capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (finality and prudential ripeness principles under APA)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (Sup. Ct.) (Due Process Clause applies to all persons in U.S.)