Serrano v. U.S. Attorney General
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19087
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Serrano, a Salvadoran national who entered the U.S. illegally in 1996, sought adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. §1255(a).
- He registered for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2001 and re-registered in 2006, 2008, and 2009.
- In 2008 Serrano’s spouse, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 on his behalf and Serrano filed an I-485 to adjust status.
- DHS/USCIS denied Serrano’s adjustment because he had not been inspected and admitted or paroled following inspection.
- Serrano filed a district-court action for mandamus and APA review seeking to compel a favorable adjustment decision and to reopen his application.
- The district court dismissed the mandamus claim for lack of an adequate remedy and denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was proper given an adequate APA remedy | Serrano contends mandamus is available because agency inaction on his adjustment merits compelled relief. | Defendants argue APA provides an adequate remedy, foreclosing mandamus relief. | Mandamus denied; APA remedy adequate. |
| Whether §1254a(f)(4) alters §1255(a)’s eligibility requirement | Serrano asserts TPS status under §1254a(f)(4) modifies the 'inspected and admitted or paroled' condition for §1255(a). | DHS contends §1255(a) plain language remains the limitation and §1254a(f)(4) does not change it. | §1254a(f)(4) does not alter §1255(a); plain language controls and TPS does not create eligibility absent initial inspection/admission. |
| Whether TPS confers eligibility for adjustment despite lack of initial inspection | TPS makes Serrano eligible for adjustment by treating him as in lawful status for purposes of §1255. | Eligibility remains limited to those who were inspected and admitted or paroled, regardless of TPS. | TPS does not satisfy the §1255(a) threshold; ineligible for §1255 adjustment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2003) (mandamus available only with clear right and no adequate remedy)
- Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011) (APA relief forecloses mandamus where relief is available)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1944) (non-binding interpretations receive persuasive weight)
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. United States, 455 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) (statutory interpretation and agency deference framework)
- Scheerer v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (contextual federal statutory interpretation in immigration)
- Orellana, 405 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005) (considered for TPS interaction with eligibility)