Court Opinion

ID: 9883016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 00:00:34.689011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:45.028325
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20043        Document: 00516921803             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                 October 5, 2023
                                      No. 23-20043
                                     ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Jose Maria Daniel Gaytan Mendoza,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
   Security; Ur M. Jaddou; Carroll Wallace,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-4008
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Appellant Jose Maria Daniel Gaytan Mendoza appeals the district
   court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Finding that the
   district court correctly held it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of
   Mendoza’s application for adjust, we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20043     Document: 00516921803           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                    No. 23-20043

          Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, first entered the United States in 1995.
   He returned to Mexico in 2005. When he attempted to reenter the United
   States in November 2005, he showed his school ID and claimed to be a
   United States citizen. He was permitted entrance.
          In 2015, after marrying a United States citizen, Mendoza filed an
   application to adjust his residency status to permanent resident.          His
   application was denied because of his false representation of citizenship in
   November 2005.
          After exhausting other avenues of relief, Mendoza filed a complaint
   against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship
   and Immigration Services (USCIS) (the Defendants) in the Southern
   District of Texas, seeking review of USCIS’s action, a declaratory judgment
   that USCIS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with the
   law when it denied his application, and relief under the Administrative
   Procedure Act (APA) to compel USCIS to reopen and adjudicate his
   application by applying the proper legal standard. The Defendants moved
   for summary judgment, which the district court granted, and Mendoza timely
   appealed.
          The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial
   of Mendoza’s application for adjustment.         It concluded that 8 U.S.C.
   § 1242(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review because the decision to deny Mendoza
   an adjustment of his status to permanent resident was a discretionary
   decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).               It further concluded that
   § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s exception, preserving judicial review for constitutional
   claims and questions of law, did not apply.
          On appeal, Mendoza argues that (1) the denial of his application was
   not discretionary such that § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not bar judicial review and

                                         2
Case: 23-20043      Document: 00516921803          Page: 3     Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                    No. 23-20043

   (2) even if § 1252(a)(2)(B) applies, his case falls within the § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s
   exception for constitutional claims and questions of law.
          We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Hudson v. Lincare,
   Inc., 58 F.4th 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2023). Under § 1255, the Attorney General
   has discretion to adjust the status of a noncitizen that is “admissible” under
   8 U.S.C. § 1182. See § 1255(a) (“The status of any alien . . . may be adjusted
   by the Attorney General, in his discretion. . . .”). A noncitizen who falsely
   represents his citizenship is deemed inadmissible. See §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii),
   1182(i).
          As the district court found, § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review of
   Mendoza’s claims. In Patel v. Garland, the Supreme Court confronted
   similar facts in which a noncitizen sought adjustment of status in removal
   proceedings under § 1255 but was denied for previously falsely stating that
   he was a U.S. citizen. 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1619-20 (2022). In determining that
   judicial review was barred, the Supreme Court held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
   “prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under
   § 1255 and the other enumerated provisions. . . . Here, ‘any’ means that the
   provision applies to judgments ‘of whatever kind’ under § 1255, not just
   discretionary judgments or the last-in-time judgment.” Id. at 1622. Thus,
   the denial of Mendoza’s status adjustment under § 1255 triggers
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s bar for judicial review.
          Mendoza’s claim is not saved by the exception in § 1252(a)(2)(D),
   which preserves jurisdiction for courts of appeal to consider constitutional
   claims and questions of law raised in petitions for review. The statute states:
          Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision
          of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or
          eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding
          review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon

                                          3
Case: 23-20043        Document: 00516921803              Page: 4       Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                         No. 23-20043

           a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in
           accordance with this section.
   8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added). Though Mendoza raises a legal
   issue about scienter, this case does not involve a petition for review.1
   Mendoza did not file his action directly in the Fifth Circuit to contest a
   decision by the BIA. Instead, he filed a complaint directly in the district court
   against DHS and USCIS under the APA.                         Thus, by its plain text,
   § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s exception does not apply.
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           1
             Multiple courts have held that similar suits are not petitions for review and that
   § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not preserve jurisdiction in district courts. See, e.g., Ike v. USCIS,
   No. 3:21-CV-2320-D, 2022 WL 2078214, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2022) (civil suit
   involving the APA and other causes of action filed in district court); U.S. ex rel. Vaso v.
   Chertoff, 369 F. App’x 395, 402 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (same); Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545
   F.3d 229, 235 (2d Cir. 2008) (“While the statute creates an exception for ‘constitutional
   claims or questions of law,’ see id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), jurisdiction to review such claims is
   vested exclusively in the courts of appeals. . ..”); Easwarankudyil v. Hazuda, No. 3:13-CV-
   4166-P, 2014 WL 11498059, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2014), aff’d, 600 F. App’x 254 (5th
   Cir. 2015) (“[T]his Court is not the proper place to raise a review of constitutional claims
   or questions of law. Rather, § 1252(a)(2)(D) provides that constitutional claims or
   questions of law may be reviewed upon a ‘petition for review filed with an appropriate court
   of appeals.’”).

                                                4