126 F.4th 835
3d Cir.2025Background
- Krishna Kishore Geda and Chaya Durga Sruthi Keerthi Nunna, Indian nationals lawfully in the U.S. on employment-based nonimmigrant visas, applied for green cards (adjustment of status).
- Their applications were put on hold when immigrant visa retrogression made visas unavailable, pursuant to the USCIS's Adjudication Hold Policy.
- The Gedas sued USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay, seeking to compel adjudication and invalidate the policy.
- The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that adjustment of status decisions are discretionary and shielded from judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
- On appeal, the Third Circuit examined whether the hold policy and its application to the Gedas' green card petitions were reviewable by federal courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Adjudication Hold Policy subject to judicial review under the APA? | USCIS's policy is unlawful and violates congressional intent; the APA allows a court to compel action unlawfully withheld. | Policy and adjudication process are committed to agency discretion by statute; courts have no jurisdiction. | Policy is discretionary under § 1255(a); shielded from review under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). |
| Does § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar review of adjustment of status process? | Bar applies only to final decisions, not to process or inaction; review should be allowed. | Statute bars review of any discretionary actions, including procedures and delays. | Bar applies to both decisions and the process; review precluded. |
| Is there a presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action? | Yes, absent clear Congressional intent to preclude jurisdiction. | The statute is clear in precluding jurisdiction over this discretionary process. | Statutes are clear; presumption does not apply. |
| Does the lack of a final decision ("inaction") remain reviewable? | Inaction (failure to decide) not covered by bar against review of decisions or actions. | "Decision or action" in the statute includes delays or inaction per policy. | Bar includes delays and inaction under agency policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41 (explains first-come, first-served visa allocation and retrogression)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (courts must dismiss when lacking subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (jurisdiction must be determined before proceeding on merits)
- Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (titles cannot limit plain statutory text)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (statutory language required to preclude judicial review; defines "this subchapter")
- Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (latent right to judicial review may be preserved by Congress)