815 F.3d 1095
8th Cir.2016Background
- Rajasekaran, an Indian national, had an I-140 petition filed and approved by Pacific West in 2006; he and his family filed I-485s that remained pending >180 days, and he ported jobs twice without new I-140s being filed.
- Pacific West later closed; USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke the I-140 to Pacific West and its attorney alleging fraud; Pacific West did not respond.
- Rajasekaran learned of the notice through Pacific West’s lawyer (who also represented him) and requested more detail; USCIS provided no further specifics, revoked the I-140, denied his motion to reopen, and denied his I-485.
- Rajasekaran sued in district court contesting (1) USCIS’s failure to provide adequate disclosure under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) before revocation, and (2) denial of his adjustment under AC21 job-portability.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary revocation procedures and that Rajasekaran was not eligible to port because the I-140 was not valid initially due to petition deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review I-140 revocation for inadequate disclosure under 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(16) | Rajasekaran: USCIS failed to disclose the basis for revocation to him, denying required procedural protections and thus reviewable | USCIS: Revocation is discretionary under INA §1155 and §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of such discretionary agency actions | Court: No jurisdiction — agency’s discretionary revocation/procedural choices not reviewable here |
| Whether an agency’s noncompliance with its regulation (disclosure) is a reviewable predicate legal question | Rajasekaran: Regulation confers procedural benefits making compliance reviewable | USCIS: Even if regulatory, procedural rules that serve agency functions are not necessarily reviewable; statute bars review | Court: Procedural-disclosure complaints do not overcome §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); no review of these discretionary procedures |
| Eligibility to adjust status under AC21 job-portability (I-485 requirement that underlying I-140 be valid) | Rajasekaran: He satisfied AC21 porting requirements because his I-485 was pending >180 days and he changed to similar jobs | USCIS: An I-140 remains valid under AC21 only if it was valid initially; USCIS found the original petition was deficient/fraudulent | Court: Held Rajasekaran ineligible — I-140 was not valid to begin with, so AC21 porting inapplicable |
| Proper judicial forum / scope of review for statutory eligibility to §1255 relief | Rajasekaran: District court can decide statutory eligibility for adjustment | USCIS: Jurisdictional bar may preclude review of §1255-related determinations | Court: Did not resolve circuit split over reviewability of statutory-eligibility questions under §1252(a)(2)(B)(i); disposition based on lack of jurisdiction over discretionary revocation and on merits that I-140 was invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdelwahab v. Frazier, 578 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing limits on judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions)
- Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing reviewable predicate legal questions from discretionary decisions)
- American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv., 397 U.S. 532 (1970) (procedural rules intended to confer important individual benefits may be judicially enforceable)
- Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004) (agency internal procedures and discretionary decisions limit reviewability)
- Int’l Comm. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987) (addressing when courts can craft standards for reviewing agency actions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (court must resolve jurisdictional questions before reaching merits)