UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SAM WISE and RIMA WISE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GARLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02198-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this immigration case, the plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the 

defendants to adjudicate each plaintiff’s pending N-400 Application for 

Naturalization. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants have failed to adjudicate 

their N-400 applications within a reasonable time and request this Court’s 

intervention under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)1 and the Mandamus Act.

2 

But, as explained below, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate why this Court has 

subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims. The Court accordingly DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case, and grants the plaintiffs twenty-eight (28) days 

to refile their complaint and address the Court’s concerns.

Jurisdiction over these claims hinges entirely on agency discretion, or lack 

thereof. The APA does not provide judicial review to the extent that “agency action 

1 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

2 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Case 3:22-cv-02198-X Document 5 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 64
2

is committed to agency discretion by law.”3 The Immigration and Naturalization Act 

(INA) confers such discretion on executive branch agencies.4 And then the INA strips 

courts of jurisdiction over individual immigration decisions or actions the executive 

branch is to make:

[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory) 

. . . and [28 U.S.C.] sections 1361 and 1651 . . . no court shall have 

jurisdiction to review—

(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 

1255 [adjustment of status] . . . or

(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is 

specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the 

Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.5

The Fifth Circuit has confirmed that courts are without jurisdiction to entertain such 

APA claims, and that Section 1252 applies to the government’s “grant or denial of an 

application for adjustment of status.”

6 

In addition, it is unclear whether the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 

provides jurisdiction. The INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision applies 

3 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see also Bian v. Clinton, 605 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2010) (“The APA 

provides for judicial review of government action ‘only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed 

to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.’” (quoting Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 

542 U.S. 55, 64–65 (2004)), vacated on mootness grounds, Nos. 09-10568 & 09-10742, 2010 WL 3633770 

(Sept. 16, 2010)). 

4 See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (“The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or 

paroled into the United States . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and 

under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive 

an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an 

immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.”).

5 Bian, 605 F.3d at 253 (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)). 

6 Id.

Case 3:22-cv-02198-X Document 5 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 65
3

“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including 

. . . Title 28 . . . section[ ] 1361 [the Mandamus Act].”7 

The Court will not proceed amidst such jurisdictional uncertainty. The Court 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate what Congress has said it cannot 

adjudicate, and plaintiffs have failed to present any statutory authority proving the 

government lacks discretion regarding the actions they challenge. The case is thus 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The plaintiffs may refile their complaint 

within twenty-eight (28) days, which should address this Court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction over their claims to avoid dismissal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2022.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 Id. at 254 (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)). 

Case 3:22-cv-02198-X Document 5 Filed 10/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 66