Madhu SudhanKanapuram v. Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services
131 F.4th 1302
11th Cir.2025Background
- Two Indian citizens, Kanapuram and Pillarisetty, lawfully residing in the US on employment-based visas, filed I-485 forms for permanent resident status (EB-2 visas).
- Their adjustment of status applications were timely filed, but during processing, the cutoff “Final Action Date” for visa availability retrogressed, moving their priority date outside eligibility.
- After a 19-month wait without decision, they sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay by USCIS and the Department of State.
- They sought a judicial declaration against the retrogression policy, injunctive relief, and an order compelling adjudication of their applications within 30 days.
- The district court dismissed the case, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars review of discretionary immigration decisions, and the applicants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1252(a)(2)(B) bar judicial review of APA delays in I-485 adjudication? | Delays are not protected ‘discretion’ and courts can review such withholding under the APA. | Visa adjudication (timing and process) is expressly discretionary and unreviewable by courts. | Court: The statute bars review; the entire process, including timing, is discretionary. |
| Legality of USCIS’s retrogression policy | Retrogression is not a discretionary act, but a purported lack of legal authority. | Policy is within agency’s broad discretion granted by § 1255(a). | Court: Policy is an exercise of statutory discretion, within unreviewable bounds. |
| Scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)—limited to removal? | Statute should not apply outside removal proceedings, per its title. | Statute applies broadly regardless of removal action context, as per recent amendments. | Court: Statute explicitly applies beyond removal, per text and Supreme Court guidance. |
| Applicability of § 1252(a)(2)(D) | Constitutional or legal claims exceptions allow district court review. | Provision only applies to petitions for review in courts of appeals, not to district courts. | Court: Exception does not apply to district court actions to compel agency action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (presumption of judicial review can be overcome by clear congressional intent to bar it)
- Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993) (standard for overcoming presumption of judicial review)
- Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (jurisdiction when agency does not follow its own binding regulations)
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (jurisdiction-stripping language not limited to removal proceedings)