Roland v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Roland, a U.S. citizen, petitioned (Form I-130) for his wife Wan Hang Gloria Chan, a U.K. citizen who had overstayed a Visa Waiver entry; Chan concurrently filed to adjust status (Form I-485).
- Roland disclosed prior Florida convictions for sexual offenses involving minors and related counseling and registration as a sex offender.
- The Adam Walsh Act bars citizens convicted of a "specified offense against a minor" from filing I-130 petitions unless USCIS, in its "sole and unreviewable discretion," finds the petitioner proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they pose "no risk" to the beneficiary.
- USCIS issued a notice and, after review of submitted records and affidavits, denied the I-130 (and thus Chan’s I-485) concluding Roland failed to prove he posed no risk to his wife.
- Appellants sued under the APA and constitutional theories seeking declaratory relief and adjustment of status; the district court granted summary judgment for USCIS for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to review USCIS's no-risk determination under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) | Appellants: claims raise legal and constitutional issues and challenge procedural/standard-of-proof aspects under the APA, not the discretionary agency decision itself, so jurisdiction exists | Appellees: § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction over discretionary USCIS no-risk determinations; APA does not override this bar | Court: Jurisdiction barred—§ 1154 makes no-risk finding discretionary and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes review; district court correctly dismissed |
| Whether the APA supplies jurisdiction to review USCIS action | Appellants: APA authorizes review of agency action and permits challenge to rulemaking/process and proof standard | Appellees: APA does not supply jurisdiction where statute precludes review; federal-question statute required for APA suit | Court: APA does not confer jurisdiction here; § 701(a) exception and § 1252 jurisdiction-stripping control |
| Whether constitutional or legal claims are nonetheless reviewable in district court | Appellants: constitutional and legal claims fall outside § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s bar | Appellees: such claims are only reviewable in court of appeals via § 1252(a)(2)(D) and only in removal proceedings | Court: § 1252(a)(2)(D) is the exclusive route and does not apply here (no removal proceedings); district court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether precedent permits divorcing eligibility questions from denial to avoid jurisdictional bar | Appellants: challenge to legal standards and eligibility is separable from discretionary denial | Appellees: eligibility blends into denial; precedent forecloses such separation | Court: Follows Lee—eligibility determinations cannot be divorced from the denial; jurisdiction is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir.) (jurisdictional bar in § 1252(a)(2)(B) precludes district-court review of certain discretionary denials; § 1252(a)(2)(D) is the exclusive avenue for related legal issues)
- Jilin Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, 447 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.) (§ 1252(a)(2)(B) precludes review of constitutional questions tied to visa-petition revocation)
- El-Khader v. Monica, 366 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.) (recognizing § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of revocation/denial decisions under § 1154)
- Ignacio v. United States, 674 F.3d 252 (4th Cir.) (statutory-interpretation principle: analysis begins with plain statutory language)
AFFIRMED.