Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10493/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Collett
Appellee
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General
Appellee
Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Appellee
Alejandro Mayorkas
Appellee
Bhupendra Patel
Appellant
Kalavati Patel
Appellant
Tilak Patel
Appellant
Trishna Patel
Appellant
Gregory Richardson
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10493

BHUPENDRA PATEL; TRISHNA PATEL; TILAK PATEL; KALAVATI 

PATEL, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; GREGORY RICHARDSON, Director, Texas 

Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; GREGORY 

COLLETT, District Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, Baltimore, Maryland; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-0400-N

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This lawsuit complains of the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ (“the agency”) decisions on immigration matters. The 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10493 Document: 00512934472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-10493

district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s 

reinstatement of a prior order of removal. We agree and AFFIRM. 

I.

Plaintiffs’ contention that the agency’s reinstatement was ineffective is 

not reviewable by the district court. Fifth Circuit precedent holds that a 

petition for review before a court of appeals is the “sole and exclusive means 

for judicial review of an order of removal.” Iracheta v. Holder, 730 F.3d 419, 

422 (5th Cir. 2013). The Iracheta court likewise reiterates that such “statutory 

jurisdiction over ‘final orders of removal’ extends to reinstatement orders.” Id.

(citing Ojeda–Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, 

the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the 

matter. 

Additionally, judicial review of I-485 adjustment of status applications 

is statutorily prohibited. See Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 273, 276-77 (5th 

Cir. 2008). The Ayanbadejo court interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), stated:

[C]ourts are precluded from reviewing those decisions “specified in 

the statute” to be discretionary. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) explicitly 

places “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . . 

section 1255,” which provides the statutory authority for I-485 

applications, in this category of discretionary decisions that no 

courts have jurisdiction to review. The law makes clear that we

and the district court lack jurisdiction over determinations made 

with respect to an I-485 application for permanent resident status 

under § 1255. Id. (footnotes omitted).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10493 Document: 00512934472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015