973 F.3d 794
8th Cir.2020Background
- Farok Hamod and Orwa Al‑Saadoon entered the U.S. on religious‑worker visas (1999); Hamod began working for ICCC before formal authorization and the couple adjusted to LPR status in 2002.
- In 2007 USCIS denied their naturalization applications because Hamod engaged in unauthorized employment, so they were never "lawfully admitted for permanent residence;" this court affirmed that denial in Al‑Saadoon v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2016).
- In 2014–2015 their U.S.‑citizen child filed I‑130s and the couple filed I‑485s plus Supplement A requesting that their 2002 adjustment be treated nunc pro tunc to cure the prior unlawful adjustment; they also filed new naturalization applications.
- USCIS denied the nunc pro tunc adjustment and the naturalization applications, stating INA does not authorize nunc pro tunc relief and, even if it did, USCIS would deny relief in its discretion; USCIS also noted prior adverse findings and potential misstatements.
- The district court dismissed the suit: it held it lacked jurisdiction to review the nunc pro tunc adjustment (jurisdiction over naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) did not extend to separate adjustment claims and §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary adjustment denials), and remaining naturalization claims were precluded by res judicata; CARRP and RFRA claims were dismissed for failure to plead.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review nunc pro tunc adjustment (via 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)) | The Supplement A nunc pro tunc request was part of the naturalization application, so §1421(c) gives district courts jurisdiction. | Adjustment and naturalization are distinct; §1421(c) covers naturalization only and cannot be used to review separate adjustment claims. | No jurisdiction under §1421(c); the district court correctly declined to treat nunc pro tunc adjustment as part of naturalization review. |
| Jurisdiction under APA (challenge to denial of nunc pro tunc relief) | APA provides presumptive review of final agency action; plaintiffs seek legal entitlement under §1255(i). | 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of discretionary adjustment denials; nunc pro tunc relief is discretionary. | APA review precluded: the denial was discretionary and §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review; courts lack jurisdiction over the nunc pro tunc adjustment denial. |
| Res judicata as to naturalization claims | This case differs because plaintiffs seek nunc pro tunc relief now; thus naturalization claims are not the same cause of action. | Al‑Saadoon I already resolved naturalization eligibility; the present naturalization claims are the same and are barred. | Res judicata bars relitigation of naturalization eligibility established in Al‑Saadoon I; dismissal of naturalization claims affirmed. |
| CARRP and RFRA claims | CARRP caused delays/denials; USCIS violated RFRA in denying nunc pro tunc relief. | Plaintiffs plead only conclusory allegations about CARRP and raised RFRA late and without factual support. | CARRP claim dismissed for failure to plead plausible factual connection; RFRA claim dismissed as not pleaded in the petition and implausible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al‑Saadoon v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of naturalization because unauthorized employment precluded lawful admission for permanent residence)
- Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2004) (nunc pro tunc relief used to remedy agency error that otherwise deprives petitioner of relief)
- Sugule v. Frazier, 639 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2011) ( §1252(a)(2)(B) forecloses review of denial of adjustment of status)
- Abdelwahab v. Frazier, 578 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2009) (courts may review nondiscretionary legal questions underlying discretionary immigration decisions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must cross line from conceivable to plausible)
- Cardona v. Holder, 754 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2014) (elements of res judicata in immigration context)
- Rosemann v. Roto‑Die, Inc., 276 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 2002) (dismissal without prejudice ordinarily does not create res judicata)