Case Name: Santana POUZA, a.k.a. Santana Pouzo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USCIS MIAMI, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-01
Citations: 516 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 12-13377
Parties: Santana POUZA, a.k.a. Santana Pouzo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USCIS MIAMI, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
Santana POUZA, a.k.a. Santana Pouzo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USCIS MIAMI, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-13377
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 1, 2013.
Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Law Office of Eduardo Soto, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Melissa S. Leibman, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Milton Aponte, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Santana Pouza, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals the dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Pouza sought an order directing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to grant her parole into the United States. We affirm.
The district court correctly dismissed Pouza's complaint. The decision whether to parole an alien into the United States rests within the discretion of the Secretary, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(a), and that discretionary decision is shielded from judicial review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The district court lacked authority to consider Pouza's complaint under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, because the Secretary did not owe Pouza a "clear nondiscretionary duty." Lifestar Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2004). And the district court could not review Pouza's complaint under either the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, or the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because neither serves as an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. See Choctaw Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.2d 609, 615 (11th Cir.1985) (addressing the Administrative Act); Borden v. Katzman, 881 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.1989) (addressing the Declaratory Judgment Act).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pouza's complaint.