9 F.4th 930
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- In 2002 Meza was served a Notice to Appear charging he entered near Brownsville, Texas (wading the Rio Grande) and was "not then admitted or paroled." An IJ ordered him removed in absentia after finding documentary evidence supported the NTA.
- Meza stayed in the U.S. and in 2017 applied to USCIS to adjust status to lawful permanent resident; USCIS denied, saying immigration courts (not USCIS) had exclusive jurisdiction because he had been placed in removal proceedings and was not an arriving alien.
- Meza sued in federal district court, arguing he was an arriving alien (pointing to a checked box on the NTA and alleging he had been paroled), so USCIS should have adjudicated his application.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed on the alternative ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) divested the district court of jurisdiction because Meza’s claim sought to relitigate an issue decided in his removal proceeding.
- The court concluded the IJ’s removal order necessarily found Meza was not an arriving alien (the NTA’s written allegations and supporting evidence described an illegal Rio Grande crossing), so Meza’s challenge was a question "arising from" the removal proceeding and must be raised by a timely petition for review in the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Meza's Argument | Government/USCIS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(b)(9) permits district-court review of USCIS’s refusal to adjudicate an adjustment application when the question turns on an issue decided in a removal proceeding | District court could hear USCIS denial; §1252 does not bar collateral review here | §1252(b)(9) strips courts of jurisdiction over questions of law or fact arising from removal proceedings; the exclusive remedy is a petition for review in the court of appeals | Held: §1252(b)(9) bars district-court review; Meza must have sought timely petition for review of the removal order |
| Whether Meza is an "arriving alien" (meriting USCIS jurisdiction over adjustment) | He was an arriving alien — NTA checkbox and alleged parole support this | IJ found he entered illegally via the Rio Grande and was not admitted or paroled; thus he is not an arriving alien | Held: IJ’s removal order necessarily resolved that Meza was not an arriving alien; Meza cannot relitigate that factual finding in district court |
| Whether a checked box on the NTA or Meza’s parole allegation overrides the IJ’s factual finding | Checkbox and parole allegation suffice to show arriving-alien status | The checkbox was inconsistent with the written NTA allegations and supporting evidence; the IJ treated the box as a mistake | Held: Checkbox/parole allegation do not overcome the IJ’s finding absent raising the issue through the proper petition for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (arriving alien treated as stopped at the boundary until right to enter is declared)
- DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020) (discusses limits on judicial review in immigration contexts)
- Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005) (paroled aliens may be treated as arriving aliens in some contexts)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (courts may address jurisdictional questions in any prudent order)
- Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar, 895 F.3d 822 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (standard for de novo review of legal jurisdictional questions)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)