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

Heading: A Statutory Preclusion of Judicial Review

Text: In determining whether a suit can be brought under the APA, “[w]e begin with the strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.” Bowen v. Mich. Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986); see also, e.g., Furlong v. Shalala, 238 F.3d 227, 233 (2d Cir. 2001). There are, however, many threshold limitations to judicial review under the APA. To begin, Section 701(a)(1) provides that the APA review provisions do not apply “to the extent that . . . statutes preclude judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). The Supreme Court has emphasized, however, that statutory limitations on judicial review of agency action should be interpreted narrowly in light of the APA’s strong presumption in favor of judicial review. See Bowen, 476 U.S. at 670 (“[J]udicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress.”); INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001) (applying “the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action”). This strong presumption requires that “only upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review [of administrative action].” Bowen, 476 U.S. at 670 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court determined that Section 1252(a)(2)(B) of Title 8 expressly precludes 11 review of Sharkey’s claims. Sharkey makes two claims under the APA: a claim under Section 706(2) that the agency unlawfully rescinded her LPR status without following mandatory procedures and a claim under Section 706(1) that the agency has unlawfully withheld providing her with proof of her LPR status. In order for Sharkey to prevail on either claim, she must first persuade the district court that her status was “adjusted” to that of an LPR within the meaning of the rescission statute and regulation. If no adjustment was made, her entire suit necessarily fails. In this respect, establishing that her status was adjusted is a necessary element of both her claims for relief. Thus, we must determine, inter alia, whether any statute strips the district court of jurisdiction to determine whether an alien’s status was adjusted to that of an LPR. For when Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a necessary element of a litigant’s claim for relief, federal courts are left with no jurisdiction to hear the claim at all. We therefore must determine whether Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of: (a) Sharkey’s assertion that she was previously granted LPR status; (b) her claim that the alleged rescission was unlawful; or (c) her claim that she is owed proof of that status. We consider each in turn. 1.A (i) Jurisdiction to Determine whether Sharkey had been Granted LPR status We first address whether Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips the district court of jurisdiction to determine whether Sharkey’s status was adjusted to that of an LPR. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) provides, in relevant part, that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Section 1255 governs the process of granting LPR status. The question, therefore, is whether the district court, which is jurisdictionally barred from reviewing “any judgment regarding the granting” of LPR status, may nevertheless determine whether such a grant occurred. 12 In Subhan v. Ashcroft, the Seventh Circuit, discussing a similar question, interpreted Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) as precluding review, in relevant part, only of “a judgment denying a request for adjustment of status.” 383 F.3d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 2004). This accords with our decision in Sepulveda v. Gonzales, in which we held that “8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not strip courts of jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary decisions regarding an alien’s eligibility for the relief specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).” 407 F.3d 59, 62-63 (2d Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Sharkey does not seek review of a denial of her application for LPR status. Rather, she seeks judicial recognition that her application was approved. In order to determine whether Sharkey’s status was adjusted, the district court need only address whether the immigration officer reviewing Sharkey’s case was empowered to adjust Sharkey’s status and, if so, whether the officer decided to adjust Sharkey’s status. In the course of this enquiry, the district court will not subject to judicial review any discretionary decision by the agency. The court will simply seek to determine what decision was made, not whether the decision was correct or a proper exercise of discretion. Thus, the Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bar does not apply.9 9 There is a second reason why Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) cannot be interpreted to bar judicial review of whether LPR status was granted. In the removal context, Section 1252(e)(2)(C) explicitly empowers district courts to make this determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(C) (providing that in the removal context, a district court may decide “whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”). Significantly, the jurisdictional bar in Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)–unlike the jurisdictional bars in the adjacent Section 1252(a)(2)(A)--makes no exception for Section 1252(e) determinations. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv) (specifically exempting determinations made under Section 1252(e) from its jurisdictional bar). Thus, if Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) were interpreted to bar consideration of whether an alien had been granted LPR status–as the Director now maintains and the district court found–then Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) would bar courts from making the very type of determination explicitly made available by Section 1252(e)(2)(C). This confirms our conclusion that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) was not meant to bar this type of determination. 13 1.A (ii) Jurisdiction to Determine Sharkey’s Unlawful Rescission Claim We next address whether Section 1252(a)(2)(B) strips the district court of jurisdiction to review whether the agency was required to hold a rescission hearing prior to rescinding Sharkey’s status. The rescission regulation provides in relevant part: If it appears to a district director that a person residing in his or her district was not in fact eligible for the adjustment of status made in his or her case . . . a proceeding shall be commenced by the personal service upon such person of a notice of intent to rescind, which shall inform him or her of the allegations upon which it is intended to rescind the adjustment of his or her status. 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (emphasis added) (implementing 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a)). For reasons similar to those outlined above, Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not bar the district court from deciding Sharkey’s unlawful rescission claim because the agency has a nondiscretionary duty to commence rescission procedures prior to rescinding LPR status, see 8 C.F.R. § 246.1. The jurisdictional bar in Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply either. That section bars review, in relevant part, of “any other decision or action . . . the authority for which is specified to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). We have discussed the applicability of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to circumstances very similar to those present in this case. See Firstland Int’l, Inc., 377 F.3d 127. In Firstland, the immigration agency attempted to revoke its approval of an immigrant visa petition on the ground that the petitioner was never eligible for that immigrant visa. Id. at 129. The agency attempted to revoke the visa under the putative authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1155, which provides, in relevant part, that the Attorney General “may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 14 cause,” revoke a visa. However, the since-repealed statute provided that in order for a revocation of this type of visa to be effective, the agency was required to notify the alien prior to his departure for the United States. Id. at 130. The immigrant brought suit in district court, arguing that the immigration agency failed to notify him of the revocation prior to his arrival in the United States, in violation of the since-repealed statutory notice requirements. Id. The District Court dismissed the suit under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and we reversed. We held that “although the substance of the decision that there should be a revocation is committed to the discretion of the Attorney General, Section 1155 establishes mandatory notice requirements that must be met in order for the revocation to be effective, and courts retain jurisdiction to review whether those requirements have been met.” Id. at 131. We reasoned that because the agency did not follow the (since-repealed) statutory requirements for communicating its decision, the “INS had no statutory basis for its revocation decision” and, therefore, the decision was not “specified . . . to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” Id. at 132. Similarly, here, the alleged rescission was not performed in accordance with the mandatory rescission procedures, which require formal proceedings, and a hearing upon request, prior to rescission of LPR status, see 8 C.F.R. § 246.1. Thus, the alleged rescission was not “specified . . . to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” Firstland, 377 F.3d at 132. In an important respect, Sharkey’s alleged case is much stronger than the petitioner’s case in Firstland: it is especially important that the requisite rescission procedures are followed in the context of rescinding LPR status because heightened procedural protections are likely required by the Due Process Clause when an LPR’s resident status is threatened. See Ali v. Reno, 22 F.3d 442, 448-49 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that, even absent regulatory requirements, the Due Process 15 Clause would likely require formal proceedings prior to rescinding LPR status); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (“[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly”); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953) (“It is well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, . . . [h]e may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law”); Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir. 1947) (Hand, J.) (stating that a lawful permanent resident has a “vested interest in his residence”). I.A (iii) Jurisdiction to Review Failure to Provide Proof of LPR Status Finally, because the agency has a non-discretionary duty to provide LPRs with proof of their status, see Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1448 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that the relevant statutes and regulations “require that LPRs be provided with documentation of their rightful legal status” (emphasis added)), Section 1252(a)(2)(B) does not strip the district court of jurisdiction to review whether Sharkey is owed proof of her status.