Momin v. Jaddou, 113 F.4th 552

Naeem Nizar Ali Momin, a noncitizen married to a U.S. citizen with U.S. citizen children, has lived in the U.S. for 30 years and sought to adjust his immigration status for 17 years.
Momin's immigration history is complicated by inconsistent documentation of his birthdate, including alleged use of fraudulent documents and a missed 1994 exclusion hearing due to lack of proper notice.
Momin filed three different adjustment of status applications (2007, 2017, 2019), each with issues surrounding birthdate documentation; USCIS ultimately found him inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation.
His request for a waiver of inadmissibility (Form I-601) was also denied, despite evidence of extreme hardship, due to the "volume and length of time" he used inconsistent birthdates.
Momin sued in federal district court under the APA, arguing the denials were arbitrary and capricious; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on statutory judicial review bars.
Momin appealed to the Fifth Circuit, challenging the scope of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preclude judicial review outside removal proceedings?	Momin: The bar applies only to removal, not adjustment with USCIS.	Government: The statute bars review either inside or outside removal proceedings.	Yes, the bar applies in all contexts, not just removal.
Was district court's reliance on Patel v. Garland correct?	Momin: Patel is limited to removal; his case isn't a removal case.	Government: Patel supports a broad reading precluding review of USCIS denials.	Reliance was proper; Patel's reasoning extends beyond removal context.
Can Momin seek review of adjustment denial when IJ review unavailable?	Momin: Without judicial review, he has no recourse for administrative error.	Government: Congress intended to preclude such review regardless of alternatives.	No judicial review is available; remedy foreclosed by statute.
Has government error or inconsistency mitigated the jurisdiction bar?	Momin: Persistent government errors justify court review.	Government: Errors do not override clear jurisdictional bar.	Statutory bar is dispositive, even if government erred or record is unclear.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of factual findings in discretionary immigration relief determinations)
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (2020) (articulates the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021) (articulates the principle that the government must act fairly and clearly in dealings with noncitizens)