137 F.4th 85
2d Cir.2025Background
- Suqin Xia, a Chinese citizen, has lived in the U.S. unlawfully for over 30 years after being paroled in during pending asylum proceedings.
- Her asylum application was denied in 1995, and she was ordered removed, but the order was never executed.
- Xia later applied for adjustment of status (Form I-485) as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
- USCIS denied her application, citing discretionary factors such as her long-term unlawful presence, disregard of the removal order, three disorderly conduct convictions, and unauthorized employment.
- Xia filed suit in district court under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking review of the USCIS denial.
- The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and Xia appealed to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars judicial review of a USCIS denial of adjustment of status | § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies only to immigration court decisions, not USCIS denials outside removal proceedings | The statute bars review of "any judgment" on adjustment applications, including by USCIS outside removal | The bar applies to USCIS decisions; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the denial was a discretionary decision subject to the jurisdictional bar | Denial was based on statutory, not discretionary grounds, so review should be available | Denial was based on a discretionary, weighing of equities, fitting within § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) | The bar applies to any judgment, discretionary or not |
| Whether district court had jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) for legal questions | The court could review because her claims raise legal questions | Review under § 1252(a)(2)(D) only available via petition for review from final removal order, not here | District court lacked jurisdiction; savings clause does not apply |
| Whether Supreme Court precedent (Patel v. Garland) controls applicability to USCIS decisions | Patel is distinguishable because it involved immigration court, not USCIS | Patel’s reasoning and statutory text mandate that the bar covers USCIS decisions as well | Patel applies; bar extends to USCIS adjustment denials |
Key Cases Cited
- Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) (held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any authoritative decision on adjustment applications, including factual findings)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (addressed scope of judicial review in immigration cases, influencing later statutory amendments)
- Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (held that § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of USCIS discretionary decisions outside removal context)