Jama v. Department of Homeland Security, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14145

Jama was admitted to the U.S. as a derivative refugee based on false statements; over ten years later USCIS found material misrepresentations and terminated his refugee status under 8 C.F.R. § 207.9.
USCIS also denied Jama’s adjustment-of-status and fraud-waiver (I-602) applications and denied his motion to reopen; USCIS initiated removal proceedings as required after termination.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Jama removable for lacking a valid entry document and held that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to review USCIS’s termination of refugee status; Jama’s asylum/withholding application remained pending in immigration court.
Jama sued in district court under the APA, seeking review of the termination, denial of adjustment, and denial of the fraud waiver; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The district court dismissed: (1) fraud-waiver claim as committed to agency discretion/statutorily unreviewable, and (2) termination and adjustment-denial claims as not "final agency action" under the APA (also relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1252 limits). Jama appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the fraud-waiver denial is statutorily unreviewable and that termination of refugee status and denial of adjustment are not final agency actions reviewable in district court until conclusion of removal proceedings and appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USCIS denial of fraud-waiver is reviewable	Jama: denial is reviewable (characterized partly as refusal to adjudicate)	Defs: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) precludes judicial review of fraud-waiver decisions	Held: Unreviewable — denial committed to agency discretion by law (statutory bar)
Whether termination of refugee status is "final agency action" under the APA	Jama: termination is final and consummates agency decisionmaking; district court review allowed	Defs: termination is intermediate; removal process follows and provides review later	Held: Not final — intermediate step; review available after removal proceedings/consolidated appeal
Whether denial of adjustment-of-status is "final agency action" under the APA	Jama: denial is final and reviewable now in district court	Defs: denial is intermediate to removal and not final; Congress channeled review to courts of appeals	Held: Not final — same rationale as termination; review after final order of removal in court of appeals
Whether district court had jurisdiction under federal-question/APA	Jama: APA provides district-court review now	Defs: review must await administrative removal process and then courts of appeals (8 U.S.C. §1252)	Held: District court had §1331 jurisdiction to hear an APA claim, but APA requires final agency action — so dismissal on merits (not pure lack of jurisdiction); review must proceed after final removal decision in the courts of appeals

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (framework for determining "final agency action" under the APA)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (agency action finality analysis)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (APA is a cause of action but not a jurisdiction-conferring statute)
Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (Congress channeled review of removal-related claims to courts of appeals)
Qureshi v. Holder, 663 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) (post-removal review can address challenges to USCIS termination)
Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2006) (requirement that APA claims allege final agency action)
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (treatment of Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) error review)
Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125 (1939) (agency action affecting rights only upon future contingencies is not final)