2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 7-8-2005 

# H e rn ande z v

. S ecret ary H omel and P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3229

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H e rn andez v

. S e cr e t ary H omel and " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 881. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/881NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UNI T E D S T AT E S CO UR T OF AP P E AL F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3229 RA M ON HER NA ND EZ, A ppel l ant v. M I C H A E L C H E R T O FF, Secr et aryof the U . S. D epart m ent o f H o m elan d S ec u ri ty * , E D G A R D O A G U IR R E , D ir ec tor, U . S . C i t i zenship and Im m i grat i on S ervi ces; P A U L N O V A K , D ir ec tor, V erm o n t Se rvice C en ter U S C IS *Cap t i on a mend e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 ( c ) , Fe d. R. A pp . P. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01340) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Fr eda L. W ol fs on Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 5, 2005 B E FO R E : B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2005) OP I NI ON C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge.P u b . L . N o . 9 9 -6 0 3 , 1 0 0 S ta t. 3 3 5 9 . 1 2 A p p e llan t R a m o n H e rn a n d e z a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is s u it a g a i n s tA p p e l l e e s M i c h a e l C h e r t o f f , S e c r e t a ry o f

th e D e p a r t m e n to f

H o m e l a n d S e c u r i ty, e t a l. fo r l ac k o f su b

ject m att er jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12( b) ( 1) . H ernandez cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng thati tl acke d ju risd ictio n o v e r h is c h a llen g e s to th e p ro c e d u re s e m p lo y e d b yA p p e llee s in d e n y in g h is appl i cat i on fort empora ryr es i dents t atus as a Speci al A gr i cul tur al W or ker( “SA W ”) p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 6 0 . W e h a v e s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B eca us e H ernandez ’ s cl ai m s do notfal l w i thi n the exc ept i on t o the s t atut oryj ur i s di ct i onal b a re s t a b l i s h e d b y McN ary v. H ait i an R ef

ug ee C enter, I

nc. , 4 9 8 U .S . 4 7 9 (1 9 9 1 ), w e w ill a f f i r m. BA CK GR OUND A . S ta t u t o r

y a n d R eg u la t o r

y Sc h e me T h e Im m ig ra tio n R e f

o rm a n d C o n tro l A c t o f 1 9 8 6 (“ IR C A ” ) c re a ted a n a m n e sty 1 p r o g r a m f

o ru n d o c u me n t e d a l i e n a g r i c u l tu r a l wo r k e r s . T h o s e wh o a p p l i e d f o rS AW s t atus dur i ng an ei ght een- m onth per i od begi nni ng on J une 1, 1987, coul d have s t atus a d ju ste d to th a t o f

a law f u l tem p o ra ryre sid e n t, an d th e re a f ter a p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t, i f c e rt a in re q u ir e m e n ts w e re m e t. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 6 0 (a)(1)-(2). A n ya lien w h o f

iles a n o n f

riv o lo u s a p p lica tio n f

o r S A W sta tu s d u rin g th e re q u isite appl i cat i on per i od i s gr ant ed an e m pl oym entauthor i zat i on al l ow i ng hi m orhert o engageF o rm e rlyn a m e d L e g a liza tio n A p p e a ls U n it. 2 3 le g a lly in p a id e m p lo ym e n t w h ile h is o r h e r a p p lic a tio n is p e n d in g . I d. § 1 1 6 0 (d )( 2 ). E m pl oym entauthor i zat i on i s i s s ued i n one- y eari nt erval s pendi ng fi nal det erm i nat i on of a n a p p lic a tio n f

o r t e m p o ra ry re s id e n t s ta tu s . See 8 C . F. R . § 210. 4( b) ( 2) . I f an a ppl i cat i on forempl oym entauthor i zat i on i s notadj udi cat ed w i thi n 90 day s , an i nt er i m empl oym ent a u th o ri z a tio n o f

2 4 0 d a y s s h a ll is s u e . I d. § 274a. 13( d) . E m pl oym entauthor i zat i on a u to m a tic a lly te rm in a te s u p o n th e d e n ia l o f te m p o ra ry re s id e n t s ta tu s . I d. § 2 7 4 a .1 2 (c )( 2 0 ). T h e S A W r e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e f o ra p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w o f e a c h a p p l i c a n tb y a le g a liz a tio n o f

f ic e r. I d. § 210. 2( c) ( 2) ( i v) . A tthe conc l us i on of the i nt ervi ew and upon r evi ew of the appl i cat i on m at er i al s , the l egal i zat i on offi cercan de nythe appl i cat i on or r ecomm end a de ni al t o a R egi onal Pr oces s i ng Faci l i ty( “R PF”) . I f the l egal i zat i on offi cer re c o m m e n d s d e n ial a n d th e R P F a g re e s, th e R P F se n d s th e a p p lica n t a n o tice o f in ten t to denys ett i ng forth the r eas ons forr ej ect i on and i nvi t i ng the appl i cantt o s ubm i taddi t i onal e v id e n c e . See i d. §§ 103. 2( b) ( 16) ( i ) , 210. 2( f) . A deni al atei therthe l ocal orr egi onal le v e l m a yb e a p p e a le d to th e A d m in is tr a tiv e A p p e a ls U n it ( “ A A U ” ) . I d. § 1 0 3 . 3 (a)(3)(i) , 2 ( i i i ) . A tthi s s t age, an appl i canti s perm i t t ed t o s ubm i taddi t i onal ornew l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e n o t a v a ila b le a t th e tim e o f th e R P F ’s d e te rm in a tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 6 0 (e )( 2 )( B ). T h e A A U is a u th o ri z e d to m a k e th e f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n in e a c h in d iv id u a l c a s e . 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 3 . 3 (a)(3)(ii i) .T he Second Ci r cui thas uphel d thes e r egul at i ons as a perm i s s i bl e cons truct i on of the 3 IR C A . See R ah i m v. McN ary , 2 4 F .3 d 4 4 0 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).

4 T he I R C A di r ect s the A t t orneyG ener al t o es t abl i s h a s i ngl e l evel of admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew t o exami ne the deni al of a SA W appl i cat i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1160( e) ( 2) ( A ) . M ot i ons to reo p en o r reco n side r a d ec isi o n “sh all n o t be c o n side red . ” 8 C . F . R . § § 1 0 3 . 5 (b), 2 1 0 .2 (g ). T h e D ir e c to r o f a R P F a n d C h ie f

o f th e A A U m a y , h o w e v e r, su a sp o n te r eopen a n yp ro c e e d in g a n d re c o n s id e r a n yd e c is io n re n d e re d in th a t p ro c e e d in g . I d. 3 T he I R C A pr ohi bi t s j udi ci al r evi ew of “a det erm i nat i on r es pect i ng an appl i cat i on f o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s ” e x c e p t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 6 0 (e ). 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 6 0 (e )(1 ). Ju d icia l re v iew o f a d e n ial o f

a n S A W a p p lica tio n is a v a ilab le e x c lu siv e lyin connec t i on w i th “the j udi ci al r evi ew of an or derof exc l us i on ordeport at i on. ” I d. § 1 1 6 0 (e)(3)(A ). S u ch jud ici al rev iew is ba sed “so lel yo n the a d m inistrati v e re co rd es t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the r evi ew bythe [a dm i ni s tr at i ve] appel l at e author i ty . ” I d. §1160( e) ( 3) ( B ) . Pr es ent l y , onl ycourt s of appe al have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an or derof re m o v a l. B . P rocedu ralHistory H ernandez , an undocument ed al i en fr om M exi co, appl i ed forand w as deni ed a d ju stm e n t to S A W sta tu s. H e su b m itt e d a n a p p lica tio n f o r te m p o ra ryre sid e n t sta tu s to th e I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Na tu r a l i z a t i o n S e r v i c e ( “ I NS ” ) i n 1 9 8 7 i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th th e S AW pr ovi s i ons of the I R C A , 8 U . S. C . § 1160 et s eq. O n D ece m ber20, 1991, the D i r ect orof th e R P F in th e C a lifo rn ia S e rv ice C e n ter d e n ied H e rn a n d e z ’s S A W a p p lica tio n a s a re su ltT h e L e g a liza tio n A p p e a ls U n it i s p a rt o f th e A A O . A lth o u g h th e re g u latio n s re f e r to 4 thi s admi ni s tr at i ve ent i tyas the A A U , deci s i ons i nvol vi ng deni ed appl i cat i ons underthe I R C A have be en s i gned as comi ng fr om the A A O s i nce 2000. 5 of ce r t ai n adver s e i nform at i on thatH ernandez had fa i l ed t o r ebut . H ernandez appea l ed thi s deni al t o the U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces ( “U SC I S”) A dm i ni s tr at i ve A ppeal s O ffi ce ( “A A O ”) . O n O ct ober26, 1996, the A A O r emanded the 4 appea l back t o the C al i forni a Servi ce Cent erforfurtherfi ndi ngs . T he Servi ce Cent er re o p e n e d th e m a tter, w ith d re w its in iti a l d e c isio n , an d iss u e d a n e w d e c isio n a g a in deny i ng H ernandez ’ s appl i cat i on. T he A A O di s m i s s ed H ernandez ’ s s ubs equentappea l on M ay8, 2003. T he empl oym entauthor i zat i on as s oci at ed w i th thi s appl i cat i on expi r ed on D ece m ber10, 2003. O n J une 5, 2003, H ernandez fi l ed a “ M ot i on t o Sue Spont e R eopen a nd R e c o n s id e r” h is S A W a p p lic a tio n . P u rs u a n t to th is m o tio n a n d 8 C .F .R . § 274a. 12( c) ( 20) , he s ubm i t t ed anotherappl i cat i on forempl oym entauthor i zat i on w i th the V erm ontSer vi ce Cent eron N ovember25, 2003. T he V erm ontSer vi ce Cent erdeni ed the appl i cat i on forempl oym entauthor i zat i on on M ar ch 8, 2004. H ernandez ’ s appl i cat i on for i nt er i m empl oym entauthor i zat i on, s ubm i t t ed under8 C . F. R . 274a. 13( d) , had bee n deni ed on M ar ch 4, 2004. O n A p ri l 2 , 2 0 0 4 , th e A A O s e n t H e rn a n d e z a le tte r s ta tin g , in tera lia , tha t h is m ot i on t o r eopen w as notacc ept ed orr evi ew ed bythe A A O . W hi l e the A A O has di s cr et i on to su a sp o n te r e o p e n its d e c isio n s, th e A A O h a s e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n in6

notr eopeni ng thi s deci s i on. C ons equent l y , the di s m i s s al w as eff ect i ve as of the dat e of i t s i s s uance on M ay8, 2003, and the pet i t i onerhas no fi l i ngs that coul d be cons i der ed ‘ pendi ng’ atthe A A O aft erthatdat e. ( A pp. at13. ) H ernandez r es ubm i t t ed hi s s ua s pont e mot i on t o r eopen orr econs i deron J une 1, 2004. H ernandez br oughtthe i ns t antact i on on M ar ch 24, 2004, fi l i ng a M ot i on for E m er gencyR el i ef w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t . H i s A m ended Com pl ai ntaver s thatA ppel l ees re f u se d to e n ter tain h is s u a sp o n te m o tio n to re o p e n a n d re c o n sid e r a n d g ra n t h is a p p lica tio n s f

o r e m p lo ym e n t au th o riz a tio n a n d in ter im e m p lo ym e n t au th o riz a tio n in vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw and the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. H e s eeks a w r i tof m andamus orm andat oryi nj unct i ve and de cl ar at oryr el i ef r equi r i ng A ppel l ees t o acc eptand r evi ew sua spon t e m oti on s and g ranthim em ploym ent and i nter i m em ploym ent autho ri zat i on s. A ppel l ees fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton M ay11, 2004, cont endi ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, and on J une 21, 2004, di s m i s s ed H ernandez ’ s cas e underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. DI S CU S S I ON W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . SE Cv. I nf i ni t y G r oup C o. , 2 1 2 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). He rn a n d e z mo u n t s th r e e c h a l l e n g e s t o th e Ap p e l l e e s ’ a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

h i s S AW a p p lica tio n : (1 ) d ism iss a l o f h is f irst su a sp o n te m o tio n w ith o u t re v iew o r a c c e p tan c e in7

vi ol at i on of the es t abl i s hed pol i cyof the age ncy ; ( 2) fai l ur e t o pr ovi de empl oym ent author i zat i on dur i ng the pende ncyof hi s s ua s pont e mot i on; and ( 3) fai l ur e t o i s s ue i nt er i m empl oym entauthor i zat i on i n acc or dance w i th 8 C . F. R . § 274a. 13( d) . A ppel l ees ar gue thatH ernandez ’ s cl ai m s r epr es ent“a de t erm i nat i on r es pect i ng an appl i cat i on, ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 6 0 (e)(1), an d co n seq u en tl yd o n o t fall w ith in the ex ce p ti o n to this st atuto ry j ur i s di ct i onal barcr eat ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n McN ary . I n McN ary , the Supr eme C our thel d that8 U . S. C . § 1160( e) ( 1) ’ s r efe r ence t o “a det erm i nat i on” depr i ved fe der al di s tr i ctcourt s of j ur i s di ct i on overchal l enges t o an i ndi vi dual deni al of SA W s t atus , butnotof j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der“gene r al col l at er al chal l enges t o uncons t i tut i onal pr act i ces and pol i ci es us ed bythe age ncyi n pr oces s i ng appl i cat i ons . ” 498 U . S. at492. T hus , s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed overa cl as s of s e v e n t e e n a l i e n s d e n i e d S AW s t a tu s wh o a l l e g e d th e u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i tyo f s e v e r a l I NS pol i ci es , i ncl udi ng the age ncy ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de SA W appl i cant s w i th not i ce a nd an oppor tuni tyt o chal l enge a dver s e evi dence , i t s fai l ur e t o al l ow appl i cant s t o pr es ent wi tn e s s e s o n th e i rb e h a l f , i t s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e c o mp e t e n ti n t e rp r e t e r s f o ri n t e r v i e ws betw een appl i cant s and l egal i zat i on offi cer s , and i t s fai l ur e t o cr eat e a ve rbat i m r ecor di ng o f th e in te rv ie w . I

d. a t 4 8 7 -8 8 . I n arr i vi ng ati t s hol di ng, the McN ary C our tdi s t i ngui s hed cl ai m s “al l egi ng a patt ern orpr act i ce” of uncons t i tut i onal conducti n the admi ni s tr at i on of the SA W pr ogr am fr om chal l enges t o i ndi vi dual s t atus det erm i nat i ons that8 U . S. C . § 1160( e) s hi el ds fr om8

j udi ci al r evi ew . 498 U . S. at483. T he di s t i nct i on r es t s , acc or di ng t o the C our t , on § 1 1 6 0 (e)(1)’s sp ec ifi c d en ial o f re v iew o v er “ a det erm i nat i on r es pect i ng an appl i cat i on ” f o r S A W sta tu s. 4 9 8 U .S . at 4 9 2 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). “S ig n if ica n tly , the re f

e re n c e to

‘ a det erm i nat i on’ des cr i bes a s i ngl e ac tr atherthan a gr oup of dec i s i ons ora pr act i ce or pr ocedur e empl oy ed i n m aki ng deci s i ons . ” Id . T her efor e, thi s pr ovi s i on does notbar j udi ci al r evi ew over“gene r al col l at er al chal l enges ” t o the I N S’ s pr act i ces and pr ocedur es in a d m in is te ri n g th e S A W p ro g ra m . I d. T he McN

ar y Co u r tr e a s o n e d th a ti f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o v e rp a t t e rn a n d p r a c t i c e c l a i ms w e re f o re c lo se d b y§ 1 1 6 0 (e )(1 ), S A W p lain tiff s “ w o u ld n o t as a p ra c tica l m a tter b e a b le t o obt ai n m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew ” of thos e cl ai m s thr ough r evi ew bythe court s of a p p e a ls o f

a n in d iv id u a l ap p lica n t’s d e p o rta tio n o r e x c lu sio n o rd e r. 4 9 8 U .S . at 4 9 6 . T h is i s beca us e the pr ocedur es att acke d bythe McN ary pl ai nt i ffs ar e ones thati m peded the devel opm entof an a dequat e admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, and i n the cont extof exa m i ni ng an o rd e r o f d e p o rt a tio n o r e x c lu s io n , th e c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls a re re s tr ic te d to th a t r e c o rd . I d. M or eover , the court s of appe al s w oul d notbe i n a pos tur e t o m eani ngful l yas s es s any patt ern and pr act i ce ba s ed cl ai m s , as thes e cl ai m s r equi r e evi dence thati s i rr el evanti n the p ro c e ss in g o f

a p a rticu lar in d iv id u a l ap p lica tio n . “N o t o n lyw o u ld a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re v iew in g a n in d iv id u a l S A W d e ter m in a tio n th e re f o re m o st lik e lyn o t h a v e a n a d e q u a te re c o rd a s to th e p a ttern o f th e IN S ’s a lleg e d lyu n c o n stitu tio n a l p ra c tice s, b u t ita lso w o u ld9

l ack the fa ct fi ndi ng and r ecor d- devel opi ng capabi l i t i es of a f eder al di s tr i ctcourt . ” I d. at 497. Fors ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o att ach, ther efor e, an SA W appl i cantdeni ed adj us t m entof s t atus m us tal l ege “ thata cons i s t ent l yappl i ed pol i cyvi ol at ed the r i ght s of an ent i r e cl as s of cl ai m ant s . ” Mal i k v. Meis s ner , 8 2 F .3 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 2 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); s ee al s o O r t izv. Meis s ner , 179 F. 3d 718, 721 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( “The [ McN ary ] C o u rt. . . r eas oned that§ 1160( e) , l i m i t i ng j udi ci al r evi ew over‘ det erm i nat i ons r es pect i ng an appl i cat i on, ’ r efe rr ed t o r evi ew of deni al s i n i ndi vi dual cas es , notatt acks on col l at er al p ro c e d u re s u se d in a ll ca se s.” ); Na r a n j o -Ag u i l e r a v . I

NS , 3 0 F . 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (9th C ir . 1994) ( char act er i zi ng McN ary ’s e x c e p tio n to sta tu to ryju risd ictio n a l b a r a s a p p lica b le to

“ la w s u its in w h ic h la rg e g ro u p s o f p la in tif f s c h a lle n g e d a c ro s s -t h e -b o a rd IN S p ra c tic e s ” ). H ernandez has nots ucce eded i n doi ng s o. A lth o u g h H e rn a n d e z ’s c o m p lain ts re g a rd in g A p p e llee s’ p ra c tice s a re p ro c e d u ra l in natur e, the A m end ed C om plai nt does no tasserta gen eral coll at eral chall eng e t o these pr ocedur es . I ns t ead, the al l egat i ons focus al m os texcl us i vel yon the hi s t oryand c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e d e n ial o f

h is p a rticu lar S A W a p p lica tio n . W ith re sp e c t to h is c laim r egar di ng A ppel l ees ’ fai l ur e t o cons i derhi s s ua s pont e mot i on, H ernandez aver s that A p p e llee s a re a c tin g u n law f u llyin re f u sin g to a c c e p t o r re v iew th e su a sp o n te m o tio n o f P lain tiff , as se t f o rth i n i t s deci s i on of A pr i l 2, 2004, and cont i nui ng t o fai l t o i s s ue empl oym ent a u th o riz a tio n a f

ter P lain tiff

H e rn a n d e z re su b m itt e d h is p e n d in g su a sp o n te m ot i on on J une 1, 2004, and have fai l ed and c ont i nue t o fai l t o carryoutthe10

adjudi cat i ve fu ncti on s del egated t o them byl aw w i th regard t o P l ai nti ffs’ [si c] cas e, and the si m i l arl ysi tuated cl ass of l egali zat i on app l i cants . ( A pp. at227. ) I n hi s pr ay erforr el i ef, H ernandez s eeks an i nj unct i on compel l i ng i s s uance of empl oym entauthor i zat i on and i nt er i m empl oym entauthor i zat i on bas ed on hi s J une 5, 2003 m ot i on fors ua s pont e r econs i der at i on and as s oci at ed N ovember25, 2003 appl i cat i on forempl oym entauthor i zat i on. I n addi t i on, he r eques t s “gr ant i ng s uch other r el i ef a tl aw and i n equi tyas j us t i ce mayr equi r e, s peci fi cal l yi ncl udi ng decl ar at oryr el i ef w hi ch w oul d r equi r e D efe ndant s t o pr oces s cl ai m s of s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed l egal i zat i on a p p lica n ts f

o r a c c e p tan c e a n d re v iew o f th e ir su a sp o n te m o tio n s, a n d p ro v isio n o f in ter im an d y ea r em p loym en t auth o ri za ti o n s. ” (A p p . at 22 8 . ) C on cl usoryal l egati on s that pr esupp ose t he ex i st ence o f a “si m i l arl ysi tuated cl ass” ar e i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n H ernandez ’ s bur den of s ett i ng forth fac t s s uppor t i ng j ur i s di ct i on. T he A m ended Com pl ai ntfai l s t o al l ege a nyfac t s s uppor t i ng hi s ar gum ent th a t th e p ra c tic e s a n d p o lic ie s c o m p la in e d o f a re g e n e ra lly e m p lo y e d b yA p p e lle e s . C f. Ma lik , 8 2 F . 3 d a t5 6 1 - 3 ( h o l d i n g th a tc o n c l u s o rya l l e g a t i o n th a tu n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l I NS p rac ti ce s an d p roc ed u res w ere “c o n sist en t w ith an u n law fu l and u n co n sti tuti o n al pa tt ern and pr act i ce, ” i n the abs ence of addi t i onal fac t s , w as i ns uffi ci entt o m eetbur den of s h o w in g s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r a c tio n c h a lle n g in g d e n ia l o f S A W a p p lic a tio n ). Si m i l ar l y , H ernandez ’ s s uppl ement al cert i fi cat i on of couns el , w hi ch he f i l ed i n an att empt t o p r o p e r l ya l l e g e s u b

j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n a n d wh i c h i d e n t i f i e s two c a s e s o f

S AW a p p lica n ts w h o w e re n o t p ro v id e d e m p lo ym e n t au th o riz a tio n d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e irH ernandez al s o cont ends thats ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i s appr opr i at e under28 5 U . S. C . §§ 1361 ( m andamus) , 2201 ( decl ar at oryj udgm ent ) , and 5 U . S. C . § 701 ( A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct ) . N one of thes e pr ovi s i ons , how ever , pr ovi de an in d e p e n d e n t b a s is f

o r j u ri s d ic tio n . 11 su a sp o n te m o tio n s, a n d o n e c a se o f a n a p p lica n t w h o h a d n o t b e e n p ro v id e d in ter im empl oym entauthor i zat i on des pi t e a l aps e of ni netyday s fol l ow i ng hi s appl i cat i on for empl oym entauthor i zat i on, i s w ant i ng. T he s uppl ement al cert i fi cat i on pr ovi des no part i cul ar i zed f

act s . H ernandez ’ s as s ert i ons amount t o no m or e than ar gum entthat A pp el l ees w ronglyapp l i ed it s al l eged pract i ce and regul at i on s i n h is case . 8 U .S .C . § 1160( e) ( 1) expr es s l yforbi ds fede r al di s tr i ctcourt s fr om exer ci s i ng s ubj ectm att er j uri sdi ct i on i n these ci rcum st ances. 5 V i ew i ng H ernandez ’ s al l egat i ons i n thei rpr operl i ght , the pol i ci es under l y i ng the deci s i on i n McN

ary ar e notfor cef

ul l yi m pl i cat ed. U nl i ke the pl ai nt i ffs i n McN ary , H e rn a n d e z h a s n o t b e e n d e p ri v e d o f m e a n in g f

u l a d m in is tr a tiv e re v ie w o f h is a p p lic a tio n . M or eover , i n the abs ence of patt ern and pr act i ce a l l egat i ons , the pr act i ce c om pl ai ned of, unl i ke thos e i n McN

ary , d o e s n o t ef

f e c tiv e lyp re v e n t h im f

ro m g e n e ra tin g a n a d e q u a te admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d forappea l . H e does notcl ai m thatthe r ecor d i s unr el i abl e or i nacc ur at e bec aus e of a n agenc ypr act i ce. H ernandez advanc es tw o ar gum ent s thatw e mayqui ckl ydi s pos e of. Fi r s t , he m ai nt ai ns thatthe cha l l enged pr ocedur es ar e br oadl yappl i cabl e t o an ent i r e cl as s of ap p li ca n ts w h o se su a sp o n te m o ti o n s to reo p en are d ism issed w ith o u t r ev iew , w h o are d en ied e m p loym en t auth o ri za ti o n d u ri n g the p eriod in w h ich th eir sua sp o n te m o ti o n s are12

p e n d in g , an d w h o a re d e n ied in ter im e m p lo ym e n t au th o riz a tio n u p o n e x p ira tio n o f n in e ty day s fol l ow i ng thei rappl i cat i ons forempl oym entauthor i zat i on. W hi l e thes e al l egat i ons ar e p o ten tia lly appl i cabl e t o a cl as s of SA W appl i cant s , no s uch patt ern and pr act i ce averm ent s ar e cont ai ned i n H ernandez ’ s A m ended Com pl ai nt . H ernandez ’ s cont ent i on th a t “b ro a d b a se d iss u e s” a re in v o lv e d c a n n o t ac t in lieu o f p lea d in g su f

f icie n t f a c ts to e s t a b l i s h th e typ e o f

g e n e r a l , c o l l a t e r a l c h a l l e n g e r e q u i r e d b y McN ary . Atb o t t o m, H ernandez i s att acki ng purpor t ed err or s m ade w i th r es pectt o hi s i ndi vi dual appl i cat i on. S e c o n d , H e rn a n d e z in c o rre c tlya ss e rts th a t McN ary cr eat ed an i ndepende nt“pr act i ce or pr ocedur e” t es tthatperm i t s court s t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthos e SA W cas es i nvol vi ng chal l enges t o a “pr act i ce orpr ocedur e empl oy ed [bythe I N S] i n m aki ng deci s i ons . ” McN

ary , 498 U . S. at491- 2. T hi s as s ert i on om i t s an i m por t antpor t i on of the C o u rt’s h o ld in g . A lth o u g h se tti n g f o rth a c h a llen g e to a n IN S p ra c tice o r p ro c e d u re in a d m in iste rin g th e S A W p ro g ra m is a n e c e ss a ryc o n d iti o n f o r su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n , it i s not a s uff

i ci ent one. F or subj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on t o ex i st , the all egati on s m ust c o n c e rn a p o lic yo r p ro c e d u re th a t v io la te s th e ri g h ts o f a n e n tir e c la s s o f

c la im a n ts . O therw i s e, exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on w oul d run afoul of C ongr es s ’ m andat e. CO NC L US I ON McN ary al l ow s court s t o ex erci se j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 1 in tho se cas es i n w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff a l l eges a br oad patt ern orpr act i ce of unl aw ful pr ocedur al conducti n the admi ni s tr at i on of the SA W pr ogr am. T he al l egat i ons s etforth by13

H ernandez ar e pl ai nl yi nadequa t e. I ns t ead of pr ovi di ng al l egat i ons s how i ng thatthe chal l enged pr ocedur es cons t i tut e a ge ner al patt ern orpr act i ce of A ppel l ees , H ernandez h o n e s in o n A p p e llee s’ a lleg e d lyu n law f u l em p lo ym e n t o f

re g u latio n s a n d p ra c tice to denyhi s i ndi vi dual appl i cat i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti s pr ohi bi t ed fr om exer ci s i ng ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r d e te rm in a tio n s re g a rd in g a n in d iv id u a l a p p lic a tio n . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed on J une 22, 2004, w i l l be af

fi r m ed.