FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 99 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 32 53 -WSD JOSE GARC IA SERRANO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Dire ct or , U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es , DENISE FRAZIER, Acti ng Dis tri ctDire ct orof t he Atl an taOffic e, Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 16 , 20 11 )Befo re HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es , andVINSON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Jo se Garci a Serran o app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s jud gm en t d is m is si ng hi s pe ti ti on fora writof m an da m us an d h is co m

pl ai ntsee ki ng de cl arat ory an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act(“ APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 5 51 etseq . Serran o’s co m

pl ai ntreque st edth e d is tri ctco urt t o m an da m us th e de fen da nt s (1 ) to de te rm in e as a m at te r of law tha t Se rran o h as be en“ adm it te d” to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pu rp os es of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a) an d (2 ) to re-o pe n a ndre-a dju di cat e Serran o’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus , whi ch was p rev io us ly den ie d. To be eli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t of st atus un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 5( a), an ali enm us t b e “ in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Se rran o c on te nd s t ha t h e d oe s n otha ve to m eet § 1 25 5( a)’s el ig ib il it y

requi rem en t b ecau se he was g ran te d Tem po rary Prot ect ed St atus un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 4a , andth us hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus
was im pr op erl y de ni ed . After r ev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng Serra no ’s pe ti ti on an d c om

pl ai nt , andth eref

or e affi rm .

Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. 2I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND

Serr an o was bo rninEl Sal va do r an d i s a c it iz enof t ha t co un try. In 1 99 6, 1 he il le ga ll y

en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t b ei ng in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d. Subs eque nt ly, he reg is te redforTem po rary Prot ect edSta tu s i n 2 00 1 a nd
re-r eg is te redin 20 06 , 20 08 , and20 09 . In 2 00 6, h e m arri edOlg a Garci a, a U.S. ci ti zen , andin 20 08 sh e fi le d aFo rm I-1 30 , Pet it io n fo r Ali enRel at iv e, onhi s be ha lf. Atth e sa m e ti m e, Serr an o fi le d aFo rm I-4 85 , see ki ng to ad

jus t h is st atus to lawf ul , perm an en t re si de nt . The Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y ’s U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n Serv ic es (“ DHS”) d en ie d S erra no ’s app li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . The DHS fo un d tha t b ecau se Serrano il le ga ll y ha d e nt eredth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 99 6 wi th ou t ha vi ng be enadm it te d o r pa ro le d fo ll owi ng in sp ect io n b y animm ig rat io n o ffi cer, he was n oteli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 5( a). Ch al le ng in g t ha t DHS d eci si on , Serra no fil ed , inth e d is tri ctco urt, a l aws ui t
se ek in g m an da m

us as we ll as d ecl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. He co nt en de d t ha t 8 U.S.C. § 12 54 a(f) (4 ) al te rs th e ad m is si onrequi rem en ts setforth in 8 U.S.C.

There is inconsistency

in the rec ord about Serr ano’s c itiz enship. Serra no’s complaint 1 asser ted that he is a c itiz en of Me x ico, but his init ial brief to this Court states that he is a c itiz en of El Salvador. It is not relevant to the outcome of this case, but we will assume for pur poses of this opini on only

that Serra

no is a citizen of El Salvador.

3§ 1 25 5( a), al lo win g h im to ad jus t h is st atus to lawf

ul pe rm an en t re si de ntba se d o n hi s cu rren t Tem

po rary Prot ect edSta tu s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S erra no ’s
m an da m us reque st , con cl ud in g t ha t h e h as a le ga l re m edy un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act . The co urt al so de ni edhi s re qu es t fo r de cl arat ory
an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f, de te rm in in g t ha t § 12 54 a(f) (4 ) do es no t al te r th e p la in la ng ua ge of § 12 55 (a), wh ic h e xp res sl y li m it s el ig ib il it y

forad jus tm en t o f st atus to
anali enwho ha s b een “ in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d.” The co urt fu rth er fo un d tha t, ev enif § 12 55 (a) i s ambig uo us , th e ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n was
en ti tl edto Sk id m or e d efer en ce. See Sk idm or e v . Swift& Co ., 32 3 U.S. 1 34 , 14 0, 65 S. Ct. 1 61 , 16 4 (1 94 4)
. II . MANDAMUS RELIEF W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on ab ou t wh ethe r itha s s ub ject
m at te r juri sd ic ti onto gra ntm an da m us rel ie f. See Ca sh v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 27 F.3d 12 52 , 12 55 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay “ co m pe l an off ic er o r
em pl oyee of th e Uni te d S ta te s o r an y

ag en cy th ereo f to pe rfo rm

a du ty owedto th e pl ai nt iff .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 1. Ma nd am us is anex tra or di na ry

rem edy av ai labl e
on ly in the cle ares t an d m os t co m pe ll in g o f cas es . Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 7. Man da m us is ap pr op ria te on ly if (1 ) th e p la in ti ff h as a cl ear r ig htto th e rel ie f reque st ed ; (2 ) th e d efen da ntha s a c le ar duty to act ; an d (3 ) no ot he r ad equa te 4rem edy

is av ai labl e. Id . at 1 25 8. Th e p arty see ki ng m an da m

us ha s the bu rd enof de m on st rat in g t ha t h is rig htto th e wri t i s cl ear andin di sp ut ab le . In re Bel lS ou th Co rp ., 33 4 F .3d94 1, 9 53 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Serr an o c anno t s at is fy

th e requi rem en ts form an da m us rel ie f. He ha s n ot de m on st rat edth athe lac ks anad equa te alt ern at iv e rem edy for ob ta in in g re li ef. See C as h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 8. In fact , Serra no ha s s ue d u nd er the APA, whi ch pr ov id es anad equa te rem edy . See 5 U.S.C. § 7 06 (pr ov id in g fo r jud ic ia l re vi ew of fin al ag en cy

act io ns an d s ta ti ng th at“ th e rev ie win g c ou rt s ha ll de ci de all rel ev an t que st io ns of l aw, in te rp retco ns ti tu ti on al an d s ta tu to ry pro vi si on s, an d . . . sh al l . . . ho ldun la wfu l an d s etasi de ag en cy act io n, fi nd in gs , andco nc lu si on s fo un d t o b e . . . arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , an abu se of d is cret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otin
acco rd an ce wi th law” ). Becau se Serra no ha s an ad equa te rem edy av ai labl e to hi m , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d h is reque stform an da m us rel ie f. See Cas h, 3 27 F.3dat 1 25 8; see als o Ho ll ywoo d M ob il e Est at es Ltd . v. Sem in ol e Trib e of Fla ., 64 1 F .3d12 59 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ The av ai labi li ty of rel ie f un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act
. . . fo recl os es a gr an t o f a wri t o f m an da m us .”). II I. ST ATUTORY CONST RUCTIO N W e rev ie w de no vo qu es ti on s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n. Ba nk st on v. Th en , 61 5 F .3d13 64 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Co urts m ay , un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve 5Pro cedur e Act , rev ie w an a ge nc y ’s in te rp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te . 5 U.S.C. § 70 6. “ If

th e in te ntof C on gr es s i s cl ear, t ha t i s t he en d o f th e m at te r; f orth e co urt, as well as th e ag en cy , m

us t g iv e eff

ectto th e u na m

bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s.” Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., Inc . v. Natur al Res . Def. Co un ci l, In c . , 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 2– 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 77 8, 2 78 1 (1 98 4) . “ The fir stst ep of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n i s t o de te rm in e whe th er the lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e, whe n c on si de redin co nt ex t, i s pl ai n. If t he m ean in g o f th e st atut ory lan gu ag e in co nt ex t i s p la in , we go no fu rth er.” Wacho vi a Ban k, N.A. v. Un it edSta te s, 4 55 F.3d12 61 , 12 67 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Sect io n 1 25 5( a) o f Tit le 8 o f th e U.S. Co de auth or iz es th e Sec ret ary of Hom el an d S ecu rity

to ad jus t the “ st atus of a n a li enwho was i ns pe ct edan d adm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s . . . to th atof a n a li enlawf ul ly adm it te d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e if (1) th e al ie n m ak es anap pl ic at io n fo r su ch ad jus tm en t, (2 ) th e al ie n i s el ig ib le to rece iv e animm ig ran t v is a an d i s ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e, an d (3 ) animm ig ran t v is a is imm ed ia te ly
av ai labl e to hi m

at t he ti m e h is ap pl ic at io n i s fi le d.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a); see als o 2
Section 1255(a) provides that “the Attorney Gene ral” is the g overnme nt official with the 2 authority to adjust status, “but Congre ss has transfe rre d the adjudication functions of the for mer Immigration and Natura liz ation Service (I NS) to the Secre tary

of Homela

nd Security

and his deleg ate” at the U.S. Citiz enship and Immigration Services. Schee rer v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1251 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 6Sch eere r v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 45 F.3d13 11 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a) “ gr an ts eli gi bi li ty to ad jus t s ta tu s t o a ny ali en‘ who was in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s’” (em ph as is om it te d) ). St at in g t he same pri nc ip le in term s o f in el ig ib il it y , a rel ev an t re gu la ti on pro vi de s th at“ [t]he fol lo win g c at eg or ie s o f al ie ns are i ne li gi bl e to ap pl y forad jus tm en t o f st atus . . . (3 ) Any ali enwho was n otadm it te d o r pa ro le d fo ll owi ng in sp ect io n b y
animm ig rat io n o ffi cer.” 8 C.F.R . § 2 45 .1(b )(3 ). Und er 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4a , Tem po rary Prot ect edSta tu s m ay be co nf erre d o n
anali enwho is a na ti on al of afor ei gn st at e th atth e Sec ret ary of th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rity

ha s d es ig na te d fo r in cl us io n i n t he Tem po rary Prot ect edSta tu s pr og ram . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 4a (a)( 1) . Fore ig n s ta te s ar e se le ct edforth atpro gr am ba se d o n c ert ai n c on di ti on s i n t he co un try, suc h a s o ng oi ng arm edco nf li ct , an
en vi ro nm en ta l d is as te r, orso m e o th er ex tra or di na ry an d t em po rary con di ti on . 3 See i d. § 12 54 a(b )(1 ). An al ie n wh o i s g ran te d Tem po rary Prot ect edSta tu s i s n ot
subjec t t o re m ov al “ fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s dur in g t he pe rio d i n wh ic h s uc h s ta tu s is ineffe ct ,” is au th or iz edto en ga ge in em pl oym en t i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, an d i s
L ike the adjustment of status statute, the statute that applies to Tempora ry Protected 3 Status refe rs to the Attorney Gene ral a s the dec ision maker, but the authority to desig nate countries f

or inclusion in the Tempora ry Protected Status program a nd for a djudicatingthe elig ibilit y of individual applicants has be en tra nsfer red to the Sec reta

ry of the Department of Homeland Sec urity

and the district dire ctors at the U .S. Ci tiz enship and Immigration Services. Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Home land Sec., 562 F .3d 1137, 1140 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009). 7pr ov id eddo cu m en ta ti on of t ha t au th or iz at io n. Id . § 1 25 4a (a). Th e st atut e al so

pr ov id es : “ Dur in g ape rio d i n wh ic h a n a li enis gra nt edtem po rary pro te ct edst atus
un de r th is sec ti on . . . (4 ) fo r pu rp os es of a dju stm en t o f st atus un de r se ct io n 1 25 5 of th is ti tl e . . ., the ali ensh al l b e co ns id eredas b ei ng in , andm ai nt ai ni ng , lawfu l st atus as ano ni m

m ig ran t.” Id . § 1 25 4a (f)(4 ). Serr an o a rg ue s t ha t § 12 54 a(f) (4 ) al te rs th e “ in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d” li m it at io n o n e li gi bi li ty for ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r § 1 25 5( a). W e di sa gr ee. The pl ai n l an gu ag e o f § 1 25 5( a) l im it s el ig ib il it y forst atus ad

jus tm en t to anali enwho ha s b een in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d. Id. § 12 55 (a). Th at 4
anali enwith Tem

po rary Prot ect edSta tu s h as “ la wfu l s ta tu s as a no ni m m ig ran t” fo r pu rp os es of a dju st in g h is st atus do es no t ch an ge § 1 25 5( a)’s thr es ho ld

We rec ognize that Serrano r elies on United States v. Or ellana, 405 F .3d 360 (5th Cir. 4 2005), but that dec ision fails to support his argument. Ore llana addr esses the “ sole question . . . [of] whether

an alien who enter s the United States without inspection and subseque ntly rec eives TPS i s ‘illeg ally

or unlawf

ully in the United States’ under section [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g )(5) (A).” I d. at 362. The c ourt noted: Tec hnically , Ore llana wa s not eligible f or TPS because he had e ntere d the country without inspection and was inadmissible at the time of his application. However , Ore llana disclosed his illeg al entry on his TPS application, and this application was subseque ntly

grante d. This raises a

n infere nce that Orellana ’s inadmissibili ty was wa ived by

the Attorney

Gene ral. I d. at 363 n.8 (c itation omit ted). Serr ano does not a ssert that he disclose d his ill eg al entry into the United States on his application for Tempora ry Protected Status. Fur

thermore , the Ore llana court wa s not addressingthe intera ction of § 1254a( f)( 4) with the plain languag e of § 1255( a) but instead wa s decidingonly the issue of whe ther a

n alien with tempora

ry protec ted status can be convicted of

violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(5) (A). See id. at 362. Any thing the O rellana

opinion say s about adjustment of status is dicta. 8requi rem en t tha t h e is eli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus on ly if he was i ni ti al ly in sp ect edan d a dm it te d o r pa ro le d. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng is
co ns is te ntwith t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e. Fu rth erm or e, to th e ex te ntSerra no co nt en ds th atth e st atut ory lan gu ag e is
am bi gu ou s, Se rran o’s cl ai m st il l fa il s b ecau se th e INS, th e p red eces so r to th e DHS, has in te rp ret ed§ 1 25 5( a) an d § 12 54 a(f) (4 ) inth e sa m e way as we do ab ov e. See Gen co . Op. No. 9 1- 27 , 19 91 W L 11 85 13 8 (I NS Mar . 4, 1 99 1) (co nc lu di ng th atanali enwho en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t i ns pe ct io n i s i ne li gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r § 1 25 5, ev enif g ran te d Tem po rary Prot ect edSta tu s
un de r § 1 25 4a ); Ge nc o. Op . 93 -9 4, 1 99 3 WL 15 04 04 1 (I NS Dec. 2 8, 1 99 3) (co nc lu di ng th atanali enwho en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t i ns pe ct io n i s el ig ib le to ch an ge hi s n on imm ig ran t s ta tu s u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 8, b utno ti ng th at , un li ke § 1 25 5, § 12 58 do es no t re qu ire in sp ect io n o r adm is si on ). W e co nc lu de th atth es e DHS in te rp ret at io ns en joy de fere nc e u nd er Sk id m or e, whi ch ho ld s tha t “ a n on -b in di ng adm in is tra ti ve in te rp ret at io n c arri es a weig htde pe nd en t upo n the th or ou gh ne ss ev id en t i n i ts co ns id erat io n, t he va li di ty of it s re as on in g, i ts co ns is te nc y with e arl ie r an d l at er p ro no un cem en ts , andall th os e fac to rs whi ch gi ve itpo wer t o p ers ua de , if l ack in g p owe r to co nt ro l.” Qui nc hi a v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 5 52 F.3d12 55 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In o th er

9wor ds , eve n i f th e st atut ory lan gu ag e is am

bi gu ou s, we d eferto th e DHS’s
co ns is te ntan d wel l-r eas on edin te rp ret at io n o f th e in te rp lay be twee n § 12 55 (a) a nd § 1 25 4a (f)(4 ). 5 AFFIRMED.

The a ppellees a lso note that Serra no’s interpre tation of § 1254a(f )(4) would rende r 5 superf luous § 1254a(h), which re quires a thr ee- fifths super- majority befor e the Senate may consider a

ny bill, resolution, or amendment that allows aliens w ith Temporar y Protected Status to adjust to lawful or pe rmane nt resident alien status. As the appellee s note, Congr ess’s re cognition of the possibility

of spec ial leg islation to allow an alien grante d Tempora ry Protected Status to adjust his status further bolsters the D HS’s interpre tation of the statutes her e. 10