Mike Govender Hatchet v. Daniel Andrade, 106 F.4th 574

Mike Govender Hatchet, a citizen of Sierra Leone, repeatedly applied to USCIS for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.
USCIS denied his applications, citing alleged misrepresentations about citizenship status and prior removal proceedings.
After several rounds of denial, reopening, and further denial by USCIS, Hatchet sued in federal district court, claiming the agency wrongly decided facts contrary to the administrative record.
The district court dismissed his claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that federal law barred judicial review of such factual disputes in discretionary immigration relief decisions.
Hatchet appealed, arguing that the jurisdiction-stripping statute does not apply outside removal proceedings or to non-discretionary eligibility findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bar judicial review of fact findings by USCIS in adjustment of status applications outside removal?	Hatchet: Statute doesn't reach non-removal or non-discretionary findings	USCIS: Statute applies to all judgments, including factual, regardless of context	Yes; statute bars review even outside removal
Is there a distinction between reviewable nondiscretionary and unreviewable discretionary judgments?	Hatchet: Nondiscretionary eligibility findings should be reviewable	USCIS: All eligibility judgments, discretionary or not, are barred from review	No; all underlying findings are barred
Does the presumption of judicial review override the statute?	Hatchet: Congress must expressly preclude review clearly	USCIS: Patel holds statute's text is sufficiently clear	No; Supreme Court has decided text is clear
Does Patel control outside the removal context?	Hatchet: Patel limited to removal context	USCIS: Patel’s logic and text apply equally	Yes; Patel controls in this context

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars federal courts from reviewing factual determinations in discretionary-relief immigration cases)
Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2009) (sets forth statutory criteria and process for adjustment of status)
Matovski v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2007) (clarified that adjustment eligibility does not guarantee relief; agency has discretion)
Ferrans v. Holder, 612 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears burden of proving admissibility in adjustment proceedings)
I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (distinguished between statutory eligibility and discretionary relief in immigration cases)