Opinion ID: 2763222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possible Jurisdiction-Stripping Provisions

Text: Although the CAA appears as a historical note to § 1255, it does not state whether it is part of § 1255 or a wholly separate statute. If it is part of § 1255, then any judicial review of the USCIS CAA-eligibility determination is precluded by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). See INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (stating that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under [§ 1255]” (emphasis added)). If the CAA is not part of § 1255, then § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not bar judicial review of this determination. See INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).4 The BIA has held the CAA is not part of § 1255. See In re Artigas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 99, 104-06 (BIA 2001) (en banc) (concluding (1) the CAA “must . . . be considered separate and apart from adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act,” [8 U.S.C. § 1255], and (2) a prior version of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c), which rendered certain aliens ineligible to adjust status “under section 245 of the Act,” therefore did not bar such aliens from seeking relief under the CAA), superseded 4 Notably, Mejia Rodriguez addressed a request for relief under INA § 244A, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, which is not covered by the jurisdiction-stripping provision in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). See INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mejia Rodriguez, 562 F.3d at 1140-43 & nn.4-6, 1146. 13 Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 14 of 16 on other grounds as recognized in Martinez-Montalvo, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 783. 5 The first sentence of the CAA supports this conclusion. See CAA § 1 (explaining its provisions apply “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of section 245(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, [8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)]”); see also MartinezMontalvo, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 783; In re Artigas, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 104-06. Accordingly, we defer to the BIA’s determination that the CAA is not part of § 1255. See Poveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 692 F.3d 1168, 1172 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining, although we review the BIA’s statutory interpretation de novo, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of a statute, if it is reasonable and does not contradict the clear intent of Congress). The parties have identified no authority addressing whether 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii) and 1245.2(a)(5)(iii), which preclude any “appeal” from denial by USCIS of an application to adjust status under the CAA, divest a district judge of jurisdiction to review an initial statutory-eligibility determination by USCIS under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) (stating the APA does not apply where “statutes preclude judicial review”). The more natural reading of §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii) and 1245.2(a)(5)(iii) supports the conclusion that the term “appeal” applies only to internal agency appellate review, given (1) appeals from 5 In Martinez-Montalvo, the BIA confirmed its conclusion in In re Artigas that adjustment under the CAA is “separate and apart from” adjustment under § 1255. See MartinezMontalvo, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 783 (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 15 of 16 USCIS decisions generally lie in the AAO, see, e.g., Mejia Rodriguez, 562 F.3d at 1140, and (2) a complaint filed in district court under the APA is not an appeal but an independent action, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-703; Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). Cf. Mejia Rodriguez, 562 F.3d at 1145 n.16 (explaining “the APA explicitly requires exhaustion of all intraagency appeals mandated either by statute or by agency rule” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We conclude neither INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), nor 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii) and 1245.2(a)(5)(iii), bar an alien from seeking review before a district judge of the USCIS legal determination that the alien is statutorily ineligible to adjust status under the CAA. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars a judge from re- litigating an issue when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties, and the matter was litigated fully and determined in a proceeding that resulted in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 578 F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). The IJ did not have jurisdiction to review the USCIS CAA-eligibility determination. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(5)(iii), 1245.2(a)(1)(ii), (a)(5)(iii). Contrary to appellees’ contention, any determination the IJ may have purported to have made on this issue has no preclusive effect in this proceeding. See Aldana, 578 F.3d at 1291. 15 Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 16 of 16