Court Opinion

ID: 9958608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 18:00:33.223799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:31.254023
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40398       Document: 56-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/09/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                            ____________
                                                                            FILED
                                                                         April 9, 2024
                             No. 23-40398                              Lyle W. Cayce
                            ____________                                    Clerk

Ashok Kumar Cheejati; Karthik Rajashekaran; Nishant
Mathur; Haragopal Chakravarthy; Seshu Gavara; Et
al.,

                                                     Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                   versus

Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Ur M.
Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

                                        Defendants—Appellees.
               ______________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Texas
                         USDC No. 4:23-CV-600
               ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Oldham and Ramirez, Circuit
Judges.
Irma Carrillo Ramirez, Circuit Judge:
      Appellants are a group of lawfully admitted Indian nationals who have
applied for permanent residency. They sued Secretary of State Antony
Blinken, in his official capacity (“DOS”), and United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services Director Ur M. Jaddou, in her official capacity
(“USCIS”), challenging their approach to distributing immigrant visas.
 Case: 23-40398            Document: 56-1         Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                       No. 23-40398

Because subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, we must VACATE and
REMAND with instructions to dismiss.
                                      I. BACKGROUND
        Appellants are nonimmigrants1 legally present in the United States on
employment-based visas chargeable to India. They have all filed Forms I-485
seeking adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Before an alien’s
status can be adjusted, a visa number must be available to him. As of June
2023, shortly before this suit was filed, DOS had estimated that visa numbers
were immediately available to Appellants, so Appellants had all applied for
status adjustments. But visa demand in mid-2023 was higher than expected,
and ultimately, visa numbers were not immediately available to Appellants.
As a result, Appellants’ applications were held in abeyance until a visa
number became available.
        Appellants challenge the delay in adjudicating their I-485 applications.
They maintain that DOS’s and USCIS’s policies of deferring adjudication of
the applications until a visa number becomes available violate the clear
language of the statute governing adjustment of status for nonimmigrants, 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). They seek injunctive and declaratory relief under § 706(1)
of the Administrative Procedure Act2 (APA) and the federal Declaratory

        _____________________
        1
          “The Immigration and Nationality Act distinguishes between immigrant and
nonimmigrant aliens[.] … An alien falling into one of fifteen exclusionary categories is a
nonimmigrant alien, a class generally delimited by a lack of intention to abandon his foreign
country residence and entry into the United States for specific and temporary purposes.”
LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 410 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005).
        2
            Section 706 provides:
        To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing
        court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and
        statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the
        terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—

                                              2
 Case: 23-40398          Document: 56-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                      No. 23-40398

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Below, they moved for a preliminary
injunction; that motion was denied, and they appeal that decision.
                              II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
        We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of
discretion, but any underlying legal principles are reviewed de novo. Speaks v.
Kruse, 445 F.3d 396, 399 (5th Cir. 2006). Before reaching the merits of an
appeal, however, “we must first assure ourselves of our own federal subject
matter jurisdiction.” La. Real Est. Appraisers Bd. v. FTC, 917 F.3d 389, 391
(5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Keyes v.
Gunn, 890 F.3d 232, 235 n.4 (5th Cir. 2018)); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (Federal courts have an “independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]”). Issues of subject-
matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d
168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009).
             III. THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
        The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governs visa allocation
for foreign nationals wanting to enter the United States. In the INA,
Congress conferred upon the Attorney General3 the discretion to adjust the
status4 of an alien to lawful permanent resident:

        _____________________
            (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
            delayed[.]

5 U.S.C. § 706.
        3
          The Attorney General’s authority under this provision has been delegated in
relevant part to USCIS. See, e.g., 6 U.S.C. §§ 271(b)(5), 455(c).
        4
           Adjustment of status is a mechanism by which an alien’s status may be changed
to that of lawful permanent resident without requiring the alien to leave the United States.
See Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549, 554 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                             3
Case: 23-40398           Document: 56-1        Page: 4      Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                     No. 23-40398

       The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or
       paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien
       having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-
       petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his
       discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to
       that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1)
       the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the
       alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible
       to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an
       immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his
       application is filed.
       8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
       The INA also sets the number of visas that can be allocated during
each fiscal year, determined based on the type of visa and the country of
origin of the applicant. Id. § 1152. These caps apply to both foreign nationals
seeking to enter the United States and aliens currently in the United States
who apply for an adjustment of status. To ensure the proper number of visas
is issued, Congress permitted the Secretary of State to “make reasonable
estimates of the anticipated numbers of visas to be issued during any quarter
of any fiscal year within each of the categories [listed in the statute] and to
rely upon such estimates in authorizing the issuance of visas.” Id. § 1153(g).
DOS looks to data from consular officers and USCIS to arrive at these
estimates.5
       DOS communicates these estimates to the public on the Visa Bulletin,
which is published monthly on the DOS website, by reference to applicants’
Final Action Dates. For purposes of a lawful nonimmigrant seeking

       _____________________
       5
           See U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for March 2024, The
Visa       Bulletin,     https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-march-2024.html [https://perma.cc/42RQ-2KNC].

                                           4
 Case: 23-40398         Document: 56-1         Page: 5      Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                     No. 23-40398

adjustment of status, a Final Action Date is, in its simplest form, the date on
which the applicant’s current visa (for instance, his employment-based visa)
was first obtained. The Visa Bulletin lists the latest possible Final Action
Date that would render an applicant eligible for a visa. In other words, any
applicant with a Final Action Date earlier than the date listed on the Visa
Bulletin can apply for a visa number, and DOS estimates that one will be
immediately available to him. Section 1255(a)(3) therefore requires that, on
the date an application for adjustment of status is filed, the applicant’s Final
Action Date must predate the one listed on the Visa Bulletin for the
applicable visa category.
        Occasionally, DOS will overestimate the number of available visas, or
actual demand will outpace the projected demand upon which DOS’s
estimates were based. When this occurs, to avoid allocating too many visas,
DOS will change the relevant Final Action Date to an earlier date to reflect
the fact that fewer applicants will have a visa number available to them.6 This
process is called retrogression. When a Final Action Date retrogresses, it is
possible that an individual applicant could have been eligible to apply for
adjustment of status on one day, but ineligible the next. Typically, when the
new fiscal year begins in October, more visa numbers will become available,
and DOS will undo the retrogression, often resetting the relevant Final
Action Date to the latest date previously listed. And when retrogression
renders previously eligible applicants ineligible for approval, DOS and
USCIS each have a policy of holding the application in abeyance until a visa

        _____________________
        6
          Compare U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for June 2023,
The Visa Bulletin, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2023/visa-bulletin-for-june-2023.html [https://perma.cc/BRE3-BLBS], with
U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for July 2023, The Visa
Bulletin,                https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2023/visa-bulletin-for-july-2023.html [https://perma.cc/EDP3-JPXF].

                                           5
Case: 23-40398         Document: 56-1        Page: 6     Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                   No. 23-40398

number becomes available. The parties refer to these policies as the
“retrogression hold policies.”
         Relevant to this appeal, the June 2023 Visa Bulletin listed the Final
Action Date for determining visa number availability for Appellants as June
15, 2012.7 But the following month, the Final Action Date retrogressed to
January 1, 2009.8 Visa numbers were available to all Appellants as of June
2023 because they all have Final Action Dates before June 15, 2012. But the
July 2023 retrogression rendered them ineligible for adjustment of status.
The March 2024 Visa Bulletin lists the relevant Final Action Date as July 1,
2012.9
         Once an application for adjustment of status is approved, the Attorney
General is statutorily required to “record the alien’s lawful admission for
permanent residence as of the date” of the approval, and DOS must “reduce
by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under
sections 1152 and 1153 of this title within the class to which the alien is
chargeable for the fiscal year then current.” 8 U.S.C. 1255(b).
                             IV. JURISDICTION

         _____________________
         7
          See U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for June 2023, The
Visa Bulletin, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2023/visa-bulletin-for-june-2023.html [https://perma.cc/BRE3-BLBS].
         8
          See U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for July 2023, The
Visa Bulletin, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2023/visa-bulletin-for-july-2023.html [https://perma.cc/EDP3-JPXF].
         9
          See U.S. DOS—Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa Bulletin for March 2024, The
Visa Bulletin, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-
bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-march-2024.html [https://perma.cc/42RQ-2KNC].

                                         6
 Case: 23-40398          Document: 56-1          Page: 7       Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                       No. 23-40398

        DOS and USCIS contend that federal courts do not have jurisdiction
to address Appellants’ challenge because the jurisdiction-stripping
provisions in the INA preclude it.10
        The INA strips federal courts of jurisdiction to address many
challenges brought in the context of immigration proceedings. Relevant here,
8 U.S.C. § 1252 dictates that:
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or
        nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any other
        habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such
        title, and except as provided in subparagraph (D), and
        regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made
        in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to
        review—
             (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under
             section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title,
             or
             (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or
             the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which
             is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of
             the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland
             Security[.]

        _____________________
        10
            DOS and USCIS also argue that Appellants lack standing and the case has been
rendered moot because (1) several of Appellants’ I-485 applications have been approved
and (2) the Final Action Date retrogression that rendered Appellants ineligible for
adjustment of status has been reversed. We may address jurisdictional issues in any order
we choose. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007).
It is not obvious from the pleadings or briefs that the controversy is moot for two reasons:
(1) Appellants complain that the mere delay of their applications harmed them by reducing
the time spent as lawful permanent residents, working towards becoming naturalized
citizens, and (2) it is not clear whether some of the individuals who are now eligible have
ultimately received approval of their applications. Accordingly, we begin and end with
DOS’s and USCIS’s statutory argument.

                                             7
Case: 23-40398         Document: 56-1       Page: 8     Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                   No. 23-40398

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Subparagraph (D) contains an exception for review
of “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for
review,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and has been interpreted as applying only when
a petition for review is filed directly in the appropriate court of appeals, see,
e.g., Mendoza v. Mayorkas, No. 23-20043, 2023 WL 6518152, at *2 & n.1 (5th
Cir. Oct. 5, 2023) (per curiam) (collecting cases).
       As discussed, the INA provides that “[t]he status of an alien who was
admitted or paroled into the United States … may be adjusted by the
Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may
prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if” the
alien meets the three criteria listed in the statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)
(emphasis added).
       In noting that § 1252(a)(2)(B) likely strips federal courts of
jurisdiction to hear Appellants’ suit, the district court cited to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 338 (2022), which
endorsed an expansive reading of § 1252(a)(2)(B). There, the petitioner’s
application for adjustment of status was denied because he had previously
misrepresented his citizenship when applying for a Georgia driver’s license
and was therefore ineligible for status adjustment. Id. at 334. He sought
review of that denial. Id. at 335. In holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction
to review factual findings upon which a discretionary decision is based, the
Supreme Court emphasized the broad language used in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i):
“it prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under §
1255[.] As this Court has repeatedly explained, the word ‘any’ has an
expansive meaning.” Id. at 338 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Babb
v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399, 405 n.2 (2020)). Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) similarly
uses the word “any”: courts are without jurisdiction to review “any other
decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland
Security . . ..” Under Patel, “any” operates to augment the purview of §

                                        8
Case: 23-40398       Document: 56-1       Page: 9    Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                 No. 23-40398

1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to preclude judicial review of DOS’s and USCIS’s
retrogression hold policies, which are practical applications of the discretion
afforded the Attorney General in § 1255(a).
       Also useful is our vacated decision in Bian v. Clinton, 605 F.3d 249
(5th Cir. 2010). The facts of Bian are virtually identical to those presented
here: the petitioner was lawfully present in the United States on an
employment-based visa and filed an I-485 application to adjust her status. Id.
at 251. Because there were no visa numbers available to applicants in her visa
category, the adjudication of her application was delayed. Id. Frustrated by
the delay, the petitioner filed suit “seeking to compel [USCIS] to adjudicate
her I-485 application for adjustment of immigration status.” Id.
       Bian held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case
because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded review of “the USCIS’s pace of
adjudication.” Id. at 252–53. The court concluded that the word “action” in
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) would be superfluous if the provision stripped the courts
of jurisdiction to review only final, discrete decisions. Id. at 253–54 (“If
Congress had intended for only USCIS’s ultimate decision to grant or deny
an application to be discretionary—as distinguished from its interim
decisions made during the adjudicative process—then the word ‘action’
would be superfluous.”). Therefore, the conduct that the petitioner
complained of in Bian—the same conduct to which Appellants object here—
was an “action” undertaken by the Attorney General for purposes of §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
       Moreover, as Bian noted, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of
jurisdiction to review any discretionary decision or action rendered by the
Attorney General. Section 1255(a) expressly leaves not only the ultimate
decision to adjust an applicant’s immigration status but also actions taken in
the course of the decision-making process—including the pace at which that

                                      9
Case: 23-40398       Document: 56-1        Page: 10   Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                 No. 23-40398

process is undertaken—to the discretion of the Attorney General:
applications for adjustment of status are adjudicated “in [the Attorney
General’s] discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe.” 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). And we recently held, albeit in an unpublished case, that
the pace of USCIS’s adjudication is left to its discretion, with “no clear
mandate” requiring USCIS to act within a certain timeframe. Li v. Jaddou,
No. 22-50756, 2023 WL 3431237, at *1 (5th Cir. May 12, 2023). Accordingly,
the discrete acts undertaken to render an adjustment decision and the timing
of those acts are determined by the Attorney General in his discretion, and
that discretionary action cannot be reviewed by federal courts. 8 U.S.C. §§
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1255.
       Exercising his § 1255 authority, the Attorney General promulgated
regulations to facilitate the adjustment of status decision-making process,
including the regulations Appellants challenge here, such as 8 C.F.R. § 245.2.
The retrogression hold policies are effectuated through discrete acts by DOS
and USCIS, informed by these regulations. For instance, DOS amends the
Visa Bulletin to establish a new Final Action Date, and USCIS decides to
delay adjudicating the applications or, in other words, sets the status of an
application to pending. See Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770, 775 (8th Cir.
2024) (noting that “USCIS decided to delay adjudicating the [plaintiffs’]
status adjustment applications” and that decision constituted an “action”
for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). These regulations, and the conduct they
direct DOS and USCIS to undertake, are therefore “action[s] of the Attorney
General … the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in
the discretion of the Attorney General[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Although Bian was later vacated because a visa number became available to
the petitioner and the case was rendered moot, we find its reasoning
persuasive.

                                      10
Case: 23-40398       Document: 56-1         Page: 11   Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                  No. 23-40398

       Our reading of § 1252(a)(2)(B) also comports with that of the only
other circuit to address the issue. The Eighth Circuit recently concluded that
it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a similar challenge. Thigulla, 94
F.4th at 777–78. In Thigulla, the plaintiffs sought to adjust their status from
lawful nonimmigrants present in the United States on temporary work visas
to lawful permanent residents. Id. at 772. The plaintiffs’ priority dates
retrogressed, and USCIS delayed adjudication of their applications as a
result. Id. at 772–73. The plaintiffs sued USCIS under the APA, seeking to
compel it to promptly render a decision with respect to their applications. Id.
at 773. Noting that only “clear and convincing” evidence of Congress’s
intent can overcome the presumption in favor of judicial review of agency
decisions, the court considered the text of §§ 1252(a)(2)(B) and 1255. Id. at
773–75. The court concluded that “[t]he text of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and §
1255(a) is clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to preclude
judicial review of the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions about the
status adjustment process under § 1255(a), like the [retrogression hold
policies].” Id. at 776. We find the Eighth Circuit’s analysis persuasive and
agree with its conclusion.
       Appellants argue that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply here because
the statute’s title indicates that it was intended to apply only to decisions
related to removal. They cite to the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v.
National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 189 (1991), for the
proposition that the title of a statute can aid a court in resolving an ambiguity
in the statutory language. But there is no ambiguity to be resolved here: §
1252(a)(2)(B) expressly states that it applies “regardless of whether the
judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings[.]” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B). Several of our sister circuits have applied § 1252(a)(2)(B) in
cases that did not involve removal. See, e.g., Al-Saadoon v. Barr, 973 F.3d 794,
802 n.6 (8th Cir. 2020) (“[Petitioners’] argument that [§ 1252(a)(2)(B)] only

                                       11
Case: 23-40398         Document: 56-1        Page: 12   Date Filed: 04/09/2024

                                 No. 23-40398

applies to removal proceedings is incorrect. The statute limits review
‘regardless of whether the judgment … is made in removal proceedings.’”);
Abuzeid v. Mayorkas, 62 F.4th 578, 586 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (no jurisdiction to
review denial of petitioner’s application for adjustment of status from
student visa holder to lawful permanent resident); Juras v. Garland, 21 F.4th
53, 60 (2d Cir. 2021) (no jurisdiction to review withdrawal of application for
admission to the United States); Thigulla, 94 F.4th at 777. And § 1255 applies
in both removal proceedings and proceedings unrelated to removal; there is
no evidence in the text of the statute that Congress intended to strip federal
courts of jurisdiction as to one type of discretionary conduct, but not as to
another.
       We have previously noted “the general expectation that federal courts
address subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset in the ‘mine run of cases[.]’”
Sangha v. Navig8 ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96, 100 (5th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 436
(2007)). Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes federal courts from hearing
challenges like this one, we must vacate the order denying the motion for
preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss this case for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
                                V. CONCLUSION
       For these reasons, we hold that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) prevents us from
hearing a challenge to DOS’s and USCIS’s retrogression hold policies, as
they are actions undertaken by the Attorney General and expressly left to his
discretion under § 1255(a). The district court’s decision is VACATED, and
the case is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.

                                        12