Nagendra Nakka v. Uscis, 111 F.4th 995

Indian nationals and their dependent children, long-term U.S. residents on nonimmigrant work visas (primarily H-1B/H-4), sought to challenge USCIS and Department of State policies on how dependent children "age out" of eligibility for adjustment to lawful permanent residence.
Plaintiffs claimed the policies, including the use of a national origin-based Visa Bulletin and a 2018 USCIS policy regarding Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) age calculations, violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Most plaintiffs had not yet applied for adjustment of status—only one plaintiff received a formal denial from USCIS based on the contested policies.
The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and later for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed.
While on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Patel v. Garland, which restricted federal court jurisdiction over discretionary immigration decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
The Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed for lack of Article III (constitutional) and statutory jurisdiction, vacating the district court decision and ordering dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bar jurisdiction over policy challenges?	§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) only covers individual application denials, not general policy challenges.	The statute, as interpreted by Patel, bars judicial review of both individual and policy-based challenges.	Statute does not categorically bar jurisdiction over general policy challenges.
Are plaintiffs' claims ripe for review?	Yes, due to likely application of challenged policies, or because of futility/front-desking.	Claims are unripe because most plaintiffs have not applied for adjustment and been denied.	Claims not ripe unless a concrete denial has occurred.
Is denial of adjustment to a lawfully present applicant reviewable in district court?	Yes, because such denial is of a "benefit," not "relief from removal," so not covered by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).	All denials of adjustment—regardless of removal context—must be reviewed only in a petition for review from a removal order.	Review is channeled exclusively into a petition for review from a final removal order.
Did the district court have jurisdiction to hear these claims?	Yes, for general policy challenges and at least through collateral APA action.	No, due to statutory and constitutional bars (ripeness and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)).	No jurisdiction—claims either unripe or only reviewable in removal proceedings.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (statute bars review of facts found in discretionary immigration relief proceedings)
McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (distinction between direct review of denials and collateral policy challenges)
Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (ripeness and jurisdictional doctrines in immigration policy challenges)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (interpretation of the scope of jurisdiction-stripping statutes in immigration cases)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (petitions for review of final removal orders for certain discretionary relief denials)
Tovar v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 895 (review of USCIS's denial of adjustment of status on CSPA grounds)