FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T DECEMBER 28, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 39 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 22 35 4- CV-PC H LAUDY R. IBARRA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us LINDA SWACINA, Dire ct or , Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip & Im m ig rat io n S erv ic es , Mia m i an d Cari bb eanDis tri ct , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 28 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International TradeJ udg e, * sitti ngby designation.Lau dy R. Ibarra ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is mis sa l o f he r co m pl ai ntun de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act(APA), 5 U.S.C. § 70 1 et . seq , forlac k o f
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Iba rra s eek s re vi ew of th e Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip
an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es ’ (USCIS ) de ni al of h er I-4 85 ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t to leg al pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus . Iba rra a ss ert s t he di st ric t co urt erredin
co nc lu di ng sh e h as no t ex haus te d h er ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as requi redby the APA be cau se sh e is requi redto fir stgo th ro ug h re m ov al pro ceed in gs . After 1
rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l. The APA est ab li sh es jud ic ia l re vi ew is no t av ai labl e u nt il “ anag gr ie ve d pa rty has ex haus te d a ll adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s ex pr es sl y pre sc rib edby statut e o r ag en cy rul e.” Dar byv. Cis ne ro s , 50 9 U.S. 1 37 , 14 6 (1 99 3) . At th atpo in t, “ th e ag en cy act io n i s ‘fin al for

th e p ur po se s o f th is sec ti on ’ an d t he refo re ‘subjec t t o jud ic ia l re vi ew.’” Id. (qu ot in g 5 U.S.C. § 7 04 ). The re gu la ti onreg ard in g t he USCIS ’s den ia l o f anap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus all ows anali en“ to
ren ew hi s o r he r ap pl ic at io n i n [r em ov al ] pr oc eed in gs .” 8 C.F .R. § 2 45 .2(a )(5 )(i i). Onc e anali enis pl acedinrem ov al pro ceed in gs , “ th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e h eari ng

I barr a fur ther a sserts the district cour t erre d in concludinga dete rmination that an alien 1 is not entitl ed to adjust her status pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment Act is a discre tionary matter not subject to review

under 8 U .S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (B )(ii). As we aff irm the district court’s conclusion it lacke d jurisdiction under the APA, we need not a ddress this issue. 2th e p ro ceed in g h as ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to ad jud ic at e an y

ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus th e al ie n m ay fil e.” 8 C.F.R. § 12 45 .2(a )(1 ). Ib arrais curren tl y

inrem ov al pro ceed in gs , andwil l p art ic ip at e in a rem ov al he ari ng on Jan ua ry

6, 2 01 1. Ib arraco nc ed es th atsh e is ren ewin g h er ad jus tm en t of st atus ap pl ic at io n i n re m ov al pro ceed in gs , whi ch gi ve s h er an ot he r op po rtu ni ty to ob ta in ad

jus tm en t o f st atus . The d eci si on on he r ad jus tm en t o f st atus is no t yet fin al , as an a dju st m en t o f st atus “ de ci si on is fin al wher e th ere a re n o d ep orta ti on pr oc eed in gs pe nd in g i n wh ic h t he de ci si on m ig htbe reo pe ne d o r ch al le ng ed .” Pin ho v. Gon za les , 43 2 F .3d19 3, 2 02 (3dCir . 20 05 ). Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e 2 imm ig rat io n ju dg e h as ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er Ib arra ’s adju st m en t o f st atus ap pl ic at io n, re m an d t o t he USCIS wo ul d b e fu ti le at thi s p oi nt . Ib arra ’s cas e is di ffer en t fr om Mej ia Rod ri gu ez v. U.S. Dep ’t o

f Ho mela nd Se c. , 56 2 F .3d11 37 , 11 45 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In t ha t ca se we he ldth e USCIS ’s di sm is sa l o f Meji a Ro dr ig ue z’s ap pe al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r Tem po rary Prot ect ed St atus (TPS) was a fi na l ag en cy de ci si on , andthus th e d is tri ctco urt h ad juri sd ic ti on un de r th e APA to rev ie w hi s cl ai m ch al le ng in g t he USCIS’s d eci si on .

In Pinho , the Third Circuit held the district cour t had jurisdiction under the A PA in a 2 case challeng ing the USCI S’s denial of a djustment of status to an alien. Unlike I barr a, howe ver, the alien ha d not y et bee n place d in removal proc eeding s. Pinho , 432 F.3d a t 196, 202. We do not have be fore us and there fore do not decide whether we have jurisdiction under the APA if the alien has not yet bee n place d in removal proc eeding s. 3Id

. at11 45 -4 6. The TPS reg ul at io ns , si m il ar t o t he ad jus tm en t o f st atus reg ul at io ns , permit de no vo rev ie w of a n a li en ’s eli gi bi li ty for TPS b y an imm ig rat io n ju dg e if

th e al ie n i s p la cedin to rem ov al pro ceed in gs aft er the de ni al of hi s TPS app li cat io n b y

th e USCIS
. Id

. at11 45 , cit in g 8 C.F.R. § § 2 44 .10 (d )(1 ), 24 4.1 1. We con cl ud edth os e reg ul at io ns were i napp li cab le to th e ci rcu m st an ces reg ard in g M ejia R od rig ue z’s TPS ap pl ic at io n b ecau se MejiaRo dr ig ue z h ad al read y go ne th ro ug h re m ov al pro ceed in gs be fo re h is ap pl ic at io n fo r TPS was de ni edby the USCIS, an d t he re was anex is ti ng , fin al ord er o f rem ov al ag ai ns t hi m . Id

. W e d ecl in edto requi re Me jia Ro dr ig ue z to “ de m an d[ ] th atth e [Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s] su a s

po nt e re-o pe n h is pri orrem ov al pro ceed in gs to rev ie w hi s TPS e li gi bi li ty.” Id. at11 45 n.1 6. W e d idno t d eci de whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt
wou ldha ve juri sd ic ti on un de r th e APA if MejiaRo dr ig ue z h adcurren tl y be enin
rem ov al pro ceed in gs , as Ib arrais he re. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng itlac ke d ju ris di ct io n und er the APA to rev ie w th e d en ia l o f Ib arra ’s app li cat io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Ib arra ’s cas e fo r la ckof juri sd ic ti on un de r th e APA. AFFIRMED.

4