Mehrdad Hosseini v. Jeh Johnson
826 F.3d 354
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hosseini entered the U.S. in 2000 as a derivative asylee and later applied to adjust status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1159.
- USCIS delayed adjudication for ~12 years; after Hosseini sued, a district court ordered USCIS to decide his I-485 within 60 days.
- USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny and then denied the application (July 18, 2014), finding Hosseini inadmissible for engaging in terrorist activities based on past association and leaflet-distribution for FeK/MeK.
- USCIS did not revoke his asylum status and did not initiate removal proceedings.
- Hosseini sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging the inadmissibility determination was erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious.
- The district court kept federal-question jurisdiction but dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding the denial was not a "final agency action." The Sixth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over challenge to USCIS ineligibility determination | Hosseini: eligibility determination is non-discretionary and reviewable under § 1331/APA | Government: § 1252(a)(2)(B) and agency discretion over adjustment decisions preclude review | Court: Jurisdiction exists; eligibility (statutory) determinations are reviewable despite §1252 bar |
| Whether denial of §1159 adjustment is a "final agency action" under APA when no removal proceedings are pending | Hosseini: denial is final because no removal proceedings exist and there is no intra-agency appeal — legal consequences flow | Government: denial is tentative because agency could later initiate removal or applicant can reapply; not consummation | Court: Denial is final when no removal proceedings are pending — marks consummation and imposes legal consequences |
| Whether the denial determined rights/obligations sufficient for finality | Hosseini: denial deprives him of permanent residence, naturalization eligibility, and a green card | Government: (argued implicity) consequences are not necessarily dispositive because future agency actions possible | Court: Rights were determined — clear adverse legal effects (e.g., denial of permanent residence and naturalization path) |
| Whether plaintiff's conduct (leafleting/support) is a statutory determination of "engage in terrorist activity" and reviewable | Hosseini: his distribution was free speech/not terrorist activity; statutory meaning is a legal question | Government: classification falls within agency expertise/discretion and denial of adjustment is discretionary | Court: Whether conduct meets statutory definition is a legal, non-discretionary question subject to judicial review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mehanna v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 677 F.3d 312 (6th Cir.) (district-court jurisdiction over APA claims via §1331)
- Jama v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490 (6th Cir.) (APA jurisdiction limits where statutes preclude review or commit action to discretion)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S.) (two-part test for APA final agency action)
- Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.) (denial of adjustment final when no removal proceedings pending)
- Cabaccang v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 627 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir.) (same conclusion re: finality absent removal proceedings)
- Billeke-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 708 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing discretionary denial from reviewable eligibility determinations)
- Air Brake Sys., Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir.) (flexible, pragmatic finality inquiry)