369 F. Supp. 3d 205
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- KPS (employer), its owner Patel, and beneficiary Raval filed a labor certification (2001) and an I-140 petition (approved 2003) to permit Raval to work and pursue permanent residence in the U.S.
- In 2004 USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke and then revoked the I-140, finding Raval willfully misrepresented his work experience; USCIS also invalidated the labor certification and denied Raval's pending I-485.
- USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office affirmed the revocation in 2017, citing fraud, lack of required experience, and KPS's inability to pay the proffered wage.
- Plaintiffs sued federal agencies and officials challenging the I-140 revocation, labor-cert invalidation, and I-485 denial; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1155 grants discretionary authority to revoke I-140s and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of such discretionary decisions; consequently the I-140 claim was dismissed.
- The court further held plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the I-485 denial and labor certification invalidation because those injuries cannot be redressed absent relief on the nonreviewable I-140 revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review USCIS's revocation of an I-140 petition | Revocation is reviewable; §1155's "good and sufficient cause" supplies a judicially manageable standard | §1155 grants discretionary authority ("may...deems") and §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review | No jurisdiction; I-140 revocation committed to agency discretion and barred from review |
| Whether plaintiffs may challenge denial of Raval's I-485 | Denial of I-485 is independently reviewable and relief would redress Raval's injury | Any relief on I-485 claim is speculative because an approved I-140 is a prerequisite and I-140 relief is nonreviewable | No standing; cannot be redressed because I-140 approval is required and unavailable here |
| Whether plaintiffs may challenge invalidation of KPS's labor certification | Labor-cert invalidation is actionable and reinstatement would redress plaintiffs | Reinstated certification would not cure injury where I-140 revocation remains in place; certification alone does not authorize work | No standing; reinstating certification would not enable I-140 approval or relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernardo ex rel. M & K Eng'g, Inc. v. Johnson, 814 F.3d 481 (1st Cir.) (interpreting §1155 as discretionary and §1252 preclusion)
- Rajasekaran v. Hazuda, 815 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (joining view that I-140 revocation is nonreviewable)
- Khalil v. Hazuda, 833 F.3d 463 (5th Cir.) (I-140 revocation discretionary; §1252 bars review)
- Mehanna v. USCIS, 677 F.3d 312 (6th Cir.) (same conclusion on revocation reviewability)
- Green v. Napolitano, 627 F.3d 1341 (10th Cir.) (I-140 revocation not judicially reviewable)
- Abdelwahab v. Frazier, 578 F.3d 817 (8th Cir.) (holding revocation discretionary and unreviewable)
- Jilin Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, 447 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.) (interpreting similar INA language as discretionary)
- Ghanem v. Upchurch, 481 F.3d 222 (5th Cir.) (delegation of substantive determination to agency precludes review)
- ANA Int'l, Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d 886 (9th Cir.) (contrary view; held §1155 contains a judicially manageable standard)