Simaga,et al. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, 2:21-cv-05098-ALM-KAJ

Plaintiff Yusuph Karaga, a Gambian national, obtained conditional permanent resident status via a prior marriage to U.S. citizen Rokia Touray; they divorced in 2013.
Karaga later married Arabiatu Simaga (a U.S. citizen). USCIS issued a termination notice for failure to file an I-751 (petition to remove conditions).
Karaga filed an I-751 waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) claiming his first marriage was entered in good faith but ended in divorce; USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Terminate and ultimately denied the I-751 waiver.
DHS initiated removal proceedings against Karaga; an Immigration Judge terminated those proceedings without prejudice due to a defective notice to appear, and DHS appealed to the BIA.
Plaintiffs sued federal agencies under the APA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 challenging the I-751 denial; Defendants moved to partially dismiss the claims related to the I-751 denial. The Court considered the motion unopposed and granted it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USCIS's denial of the I-751 waiver is "final agency action" allowing APA review	Denial violated statute/regulations and was arbitrary and capricious; district court review under APA is proper	Denial is not final because petitioner can obtain de novo review in removal proceedings; administrative relief remains available	Denial is not final agency action; APA claim fails and is dismissed
Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or on statutory-review bars (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252) is appropriate	Plaintiffs invoked § 1331/APA for jurisdiction	Defendants argued 12(b)(1) dismissal and alternative statutory bars to review (discretionary decision precluded by § 1252)	Court held 12(b)(1) dismissal improper because § 1331 supplies jurisdiction; court dismissed on non-finality grounds and did not resolve the § 1252 alternative

Jama v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2014) (APA does not itself confer jurisdiction; § 1331 governs review of agency action)
Air Brake Sys., Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2004) (final agency action requires consummation and legal consequences)
Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2006) (APA claim requires final agency action and no adequate alternative remedy)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (tests for final agency action)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)