Opinion ID: 2960205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: B(ii) Ripeness

Text: The APA requirement of final agency action relates closely to the prudential doctrine of ripeness. “Determining whether administrative action is ripe for judicial review requires us to evaluate (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S 803, 808 (2003). This claim is ripe for review. First, because the dispute presents legal questions and there is a concrete dispute between the parties, the issues are fit for judicial decision. See id. at 812. It is true that the factual record is not yet fully developed, and many putatively important pieces of evidence have been crossed out and made illegible, making judicial review potentially difficult. Cf. id. However, as discussed below, discovery may clarify the factual record. Further, because Sharkey’s I-551 stamp, if genuine, creates a rebuttable presumption of LPR status, see 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(17), the absence of a clear, accompanying factual record may facilitate, rather than frustrate, judicial review. That is, if the agency does not provide countervailing evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption created by her I-551 stamp–such as testimony by the immigration official who reviewed her case stating he did not intend to adjust her status--then Sharkey might prevail on the current record. Finally, Congress has empowered district courts, sitting in habeas jurisdiction, to determine whether an alien has been granted LPR status, suggesting that this sort of issue is fit 20 for judicial decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(C) (providing that in the removal context, a habeas court may decide whether a “petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence”). Second, Sharkey would suffer significant hardship if no court considered the issue. It is true that Sharkey could renew her application for LPR status if the court withheld review, but that is a far cry from the remedy she seeks. If Sharkey prevails in all aspects of her APA suit, the court will recognize that she was previously granted LPR status, set aside the unlawful rescission, and order the agency to furnish her with proof of her LPR status. The mere opportunity for Sharkey to submit to the discretion of the agency a renewed request for LPR status would not relieve the hardship caused by our withholding court consideration of Sharkey’s claim that she already has that status. Thus, the issues are ripe for review. Cf. McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162, 169 (1950) (holding that a declaratory judgment suit to recognize an alien’s residence, and consequent eligibility for citizenship, was ripe for review even though the same issues could be presented on habeas review).14