Jie Fang v. Dir. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
935 F.3d 172
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- ICE created a fake school, the University of Northern New Jersey (UNNJ), as a sting to catch brokers who sold fraudulent F-1 placements; UNNJ appeared genuine online but never offered courses.
- Over 500 foreign students were enrolled in UNNJ; after the sting closed UNNJ, DHS sent letters stating each student’s SEVIS record and Form I-20 “has been set to Terminated status due to your fraudulent enrollment.”
- Five named plaintiffs (and a putative class) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause, and sought to prevent DHS from labeling them as having committed fraud.
- The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding DHS’s termination was not a final agency action because reinstatement proceedings remained available and the case was not ripe.
- The Third Circuit reversed: it held the termination was a final agency action subject to APA review and that the case was ripe; it remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS’s termination of F-1 status is a "final agency action" under the APA | Termination consummates DHS decisionmaking, strips legal status, and is reviewable because no further agency review of that termination is available | Not final: students can seek reinstatement or contest denials in removal proceedings, so administrative remedies remain | Final: reinstatement is not required by statute, does not provide review of the original termination, and removal proceedings may never occur and do not review reinstatement denials |
| Whether reinstatement is a prerequisite to judicial review | Reinstatement is not a required administrative step and does not allow review of DHS’s termination decision | Reinstatement (and later removal proceedings) are available avenues so judicial review is premature | Reinstatement is optional and does not afford intra-agency review of the termination; thus not a prerequisite |
| Whether denial of reinstatement can be reviewed in immigration removal proceedings | Denial of reinstatement cannot be meaningfully reviewed within agency; IJs/BIA lack authority to reverse USCIS discretionary reinstatement denials | Adverse reinstatement decisions can be addressed during removal proceedings before an IJ and on BIA appeal | IJ and BIA lack authority to review USCIS’s discretionary denial of reinstatement; removal proceedings do not cure lack of agency review |
| Ripeness: whether the case is premature while administrative processes are pending | Plaintiffs are immediately and concretely harmed by termination and fraud notation; the dispute is sufficiently developed for judicial review | The pending reinstatement process and potential removal proceedings make the dispute speculative and incomplete | Case is ripe: parties adversarial, facts sufficient, plaintiffs genuinely aggrieved; pending reinstatement does not forestall review |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2005) (finality requires exhaustion where agency provides steps for intra-agency review; absent such steps, action may be final)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (APA finality test: consummation of decisionmaking and legal consequences)
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (judicial review requires exhaustion only when statute or rule expressly requires appeal before suit)
- Cabaccang v. USCIS, 627 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2010) (pending removal proceedings can affect finality where IJ can exercise de novo review and undo prior agency denial)
- Young Dong Kim v. Holder, 737 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir. 2013) (IJ and BIA lack authority to review USCIS discretionary denial of reinstatement)
- Hosseini v. Johnson, 826 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2016) (adopts Pinho reasoning that absence of intra-agency review renders agency action final)
- Tooloee v. INS, 722 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1983) (IJ and BIA correctly declined to review district director’s reinstatement denial)