Mantena v. Johnson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22843
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Ganga Mantena, an Indian national, entered the U.S. on H-1B status; VSG obtained an approved labor certification and I-140 for her and she filed an I-485 in 2007; her I-485 remained pending for years.
- Under AC-21 portability (8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) and § 1182(a)(5)(A)(iv)), Mantena changed employers in 2009 and her successor employer (CNC) sought to rely on VSG’s prior I-140; Mantena notified USCIS of the job change.
- VSG’s president later pled guilty to mail fraud in a different immigration matter; USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) VSG’s I-140s but sent the NOIR only to VSG (which did not respond and may have been defunct).
- USCIS revoked Mantena’s I-140 and then denied her pending I-485 for lack of an approved underlying petition; Mantena received no pre-revocation notice herself or to CNC and first learned of issues only after the I-485 denial and FOIA requests.
- Mantena sued alleging USCIS violated its regulations and statutory requirements by failing to provide proper notice and deprived her of due process; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a due-process claim; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(a)(2)(B) strips federal courts of jurisdiction over procedural challenges to USCIS revocation decisions | Mantena: §1252 does not bar review of procedural or regulatory violations even if the substantive revocation is discretionary | Gov’t: The statute removes jurisdiction over decisions and actions tied to Secretary’s discretion, including related procedures | Court: §1252 bars review of substantive discretionary decisions but does not strip jurisdiction over statutory/regulatory procedural claims; jurisdiction exists to review procedural compliance |
| Standing to challenge sufficiency of notice (including notice to original petitioner) | Mantena: She suffered concrete injury from lack of notice and loss of opportunity to oppose revocation; she falls within zone of interests and has Article III and prudential standing | Gov’t: Beneficiary lacks administrative "affected party" status and thus lacks standing to challenge revocation | Court: Mantena has Article III, prudential, and statutory standing to bring the procedural notice claims in federal court despite the agency regulation excluding beneficiaries administratively |
| Whether USCIS regulations/statutes required pre-revocation notice to post-porting beneficiaries or successor employers | Mantena: AC-21 altered interests such that beneficiaries or successor employers who notified USCIS are entitled to notice; notice only to original petitioner is insufficient | Gov’t: Regulations require notice to the petitioner; AC-21 did not alter notice rules; beneficiary is not an "affected party" | Court: AC-21’s portability changes the parties with a real interest; USCIS violated statutory/regulatory scheme by giving no notice to Mantena or successor employer; notice to original petitioner alone can be inadequate; remand to define precise notice recipients and contours |
| Remedy / next steps | Mantena: Seek relief and reconsideration of revocation/I-485 with proper notice | Gov’t: Procedural dismissal or denial on merits if jurisdiction existed | Court: Vacated district court judgment; remanded for supplemental briefing, factfinding, and to determine precisely who is entitled to notice (beneficiary and/or successor employer), possibly remand to AAO |
Key Cases Cited
- Firstland Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. I.N.S., 377 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) (courts retain jurisdiction to review whether mandatory notice requirements for revocation were met)
- Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) (agencies must follow their own regulations; procedural compliance is reviewable)
- Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (procedural failures in I-140 revocation are not within USCIS discretion and are reviewable)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (explains zone-of-interests/standing principles relevant to statutory claims)
- Patel v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 732 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2013) (lost opportunity from denial of immigration benefit is a concrete injury supporting standing)
- Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 783 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2015) (interpreting standing and reviewability in multi-step immigration proceedings)