438 F.Supp.3d 25
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiff Selvin Leonardy Solis Meza, a Honduran national living in North Carolina, filed an I-485 (adjustment of status) concurrently with an I-130 filed by his U.S. citizen wife on January 26, 2018.
- Solis originally entered the U.S. in 2002, was paroled, and was issued a notice to appear; an order of removal and a warrant of removal/deportation from 2002–2004 exist in his immigration record.
- USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny Solis’s I-485, then denied it, concluding USCIS lacked jurisdiction because Solis was not an "arriving alien" and was a respondent in removal proceedings; USCIS advised he must move EOIR to reopen proceedings to pursue adjustment.
- Solis sued in the D.D.C. invoking the APA, alleging the denial was arbitrary and capricious; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (alternatively to transfer or for summary judgment).
- The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Solis had not exhausted administrative remedies (he could move to reopen removal proceedings and seek adjudication there) and therefore denied the alternative motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review USCIS denial of I-485 under the APA | Solis: No removal proceedings are currently pending; his claim is a purely legal (non-discretionary) challenge and thus reviewable in district court | Govt: Section 1252/related scheme restricts review when removal proceedings exist or administrative remedies remain; Solis must pursue reopening in EOIR | Court: No jurisdiction — administrative remedies remain (may move to reopen removal proceedings); dismissal granted |
| Finality of USCIS denial under Bennett v. Spear (final agency action) / exhaustion requirement | Solis: Denial is final and reviewable because he lacks any other adequate remedy | Govt: Denial is not final because applicant can obtain review by reopening removal proceedings before EOIR | Court: Denial not final for purposes of APA because Solis can seek relief by moving to reopen; exhaustion required |
| Effect of "arriving alien" characterization and In re Yauri on availability of EOIR remedies | Solis: Relies on In re Yauri to argue limits on EOIR review for arriving aliens and contends he cannot use EOIR route | Govt: USCIS determined Solis is not an arriving alien and therefore EOIR has jurisdiction to adjudicate an I-485 upon reopening | Court: USCIS’s determination that he is not an arriving alien means EOIR route is available; Solis did not show Yauri controls here |
| Whether denial raised a purely non-discretionary legal question that would permit district-court review despite §1252 limits | Solis: Eligibility is a legal question and thus reviewable in district court | Govt: Even if some eligibility questions are legal, statutory/regulatory scheme and pending administrative remedies funnel review to EOIR and then to courts of appeals | Court: Even assuming some issues could be non-discretionary, Solis has available administrative remedies to pursue before EOIR; district court lacks jurisdiction now |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes eligibility as a legal question from discretionary grant of adjustment)
- Hosseini v. Johnson, 826 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2016) (district court review permissible where no removal proceedings exist and agency controls initiation of proceedings)
- Cabaccang v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 627 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of adjustment not final where removal proceedings allow administrative review)
- Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (section 1252 limits district-court review and directs many issues to courts of appeals)
- Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court jurisdiction exists when no pending removal proceeding bars review)
- Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2014) (BIA has authority to reopen final removal orders to permit adjustment; rejects deference to In re Yauri)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two-part test for final agency action under APA)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (BIA’s denial to reopen is reviewable despite discretionary aspects)