Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Hung Huu Quoc Nguyen challenged the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) revocation of its approval of his EB-3 visa petition. An EB-3 visa allows noncitizens performing unskilled labor with a full-time job offer to work in the U.S. and potentially adjust their status to permanent resident. Nguyen’s employer, Muy Pizza Tejas, LLC, filed an I-140 petition on his behalf, which was later approved. However, after Muy Pizza sold the restaurant employing Nguyen to Ayvaz Pizza, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval, citing concerns about Muy Pizza’s ability to pay Nguyen’s wages and the validity of the numerous I-140 petitions it had filed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Nguyen’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claims amounted to a challenge of an unreviewable discretionary decision by USCIS. Nguyen appealed, arguing that his I-140 petition met the portability provision requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), which should have prevented USCIS from revoking the petition. He also claimed that USCIS made procedural errors, including failing to make a successor-in-interest determination regarding Ayvaz Pizza.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the portability provision did not apply to Nguyen’s I-140 petition because it was invalid from the start due to Muy Pizza’s failure to prove its ability to pay Nguyen’s wages. Consequently, the court found that USCIS’s revocation of the petition was a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review. Additionally, the court determined that Nguyen did not establish any specific procedural errors by USCIS that would warrant judicial review. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Nguyen v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nayanaben Patel, entered the United States in March 2000 under unclear circumstances. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband's legal status but lied about her manner of entry. She later admitted to lying but provided conflicting testimonies. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removal to India, citing factual inconsistencies. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The IJ's decision was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review. The petitioner did not raise any colorable constitutional claims that would allow for judicial review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the petitioner's multiple contradictory statements and lack of credible evidence regarding her manner of entry.The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under sections 1182(i) and 1255. The court also found that the petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias, and that her judicial bias claim was not a constitutional issue but rather a factual dispute.The court denied the petition for review, emphasizing that the IJ's decision was within his discretion and supported by the evidence. The court also noted a significant error in the IJ's understanding of the difference between a visa and an I-94 form but concluded that this error did not affect the overall decision. View "Patel v. Garland" on Justia Law

Four aliens who were denied asylum and an organization assisting them filed FOIA requests for copies of the aliens’ Assessments to Refer and associated documents. USCIS released the factual portions of the Assessments but withheld portions containing analysis by the asylum officers, including opinions, deliberations, and recommendations regarding each applicant’s eligibility for asylum. The plaintiffs sued to obtain the full Assessments.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the government. It held that the deliberative-process privilege covers the requested Assessments and that USCIS had adequately shown that releasing the withheld portions would foreseeably harm USCIS’s interest in receiving candid recommendations from its asylum officers. After the plaintiffs appealed, the case was remanded for further consideration in light of a new decision, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI. On remand, USCIS submitted a supplemental declaration elaborating on the agency’s assessment of foreseeable harm, and the district court again granted summary judgment to DHS.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the deliberative-process privilege applies to the four requested Assessments and that DHS adequately showed that disclosure of their analysis portions would foreseeably harm interests the privilege protects. The court found that the supplemental declaration provided by USCIS’s Chief FOIA Officer sufficiently demonstrated foreseeable harm by explaining the sensitive nature of asylum adjudications and the specific concern about facilitating asylum fraud. The court affirmed the summary judgment for DHS. View "Emuwa v. DHS" on Justia Law

Noncitizen laborers were brought into the United States to work for construction subcontractor defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fraudulently applied for B-1 employment visas, which cost less than the petition-based visas they should have applied for, thereby violating the False Claims Act (FCA). Additionally, one plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Prevention Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by threatening prosecution and suing him to coerce other workers to continue working.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the defendants did not have an "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas because they never applied for them, thus no legal obligation existed under the FCA. The court also dismissed the TVPRA claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants' actions coerced him to provide any labor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the defendants had no "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas since they did not apply for them, and thus did not violate the FCA. The court also upheld the dismissal of the TVPRA claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not state a claim because the defendants' actions did not coerce him to provide any labor. The court's main holding was that potential liability for applying for the wrong visas does not constitute an "established duty" to pay under the FCA, and that the TVPRA claim failed because the plaintiff was not coerced into providing labor. The decision was affirmed. View "LESNIK V. ISM VUZEM D.O.O." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Indian nationals residing in the U.S. on nonimmigrant work visas and their children, sought to adjust their status to permanent residents. They challenged policies by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) that determine the eligibility of derivative beneficiaries, claiming these policies violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, allowing them to amend their complaint. Instead of amending, the plaintiffs appealed. During the appeal, the Supreme Court decided Patel v. Garland, which held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings in discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The government argued that this ruling meant the courts also lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over most of the plaintiffs' claims because they were not ripe. The Ninth Circuit concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not strip federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear collateral challenges to generally applicable policies and procedures. However, the claims were not ripe because the plaintiffs had not applied for adjustment of status, and USCIS had not denied their applications based on the challenged policies. For the one plaintiff who did apply and was denied, the court held that her claims must be channeled through a petition for review from a final order of removal, as per §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (D). The Ninth Circuit's interpretation aligns with other circuits, maintaining that general policy challenges are not precluded by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). View "NAGENDRA NAKKA V. USCIS" on Justia Law

Isai Rivas Dubon, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in January 1999 and was ordered removed in May 2000. However, the removal order was never executed, and Dubon remained in the country. After successfully adjusting his status, he became a lawful permanent resident and applied for naturalization in August 2020. During the application process, Dubon disclosed a 2019 arrest for violating a domestic violence protection order, which was later dismissed. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviewed Dubon in March 2021 but took no further action for 14 months, prompting Dubon to file a lawsuit in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) in June 2022.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina remanded Dubon’s naturalization application to USCIS, instructing the agency to decide within 15 days. The court found that USCIS had a valid reason for the delay due to Dubon’s outstanding removal order, which was terminated in August 2022. USCIS denied Dubon’s naturalization application six days after the remand, citing his 2019 arrest as a disqualifying factor for demonstrating "good moral character." Dubon appealed the district court’s remand order, arguing that the agency had not shown good cause for its delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a remand order under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is neither a final decision nor appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that such remand orders are interlocutory and do not end the litigation on the merits, thus falling outside the scope of appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court concluded that Dubon’s interest in having his application decided by the district court rather than USCIS did not justify an immediate appeal. View "Dubon v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

The case involves several companies that post immigration surety bonds challenging a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule. The rule, promulgated by Acting Secretary Chad Wolf in 2020, allowed DHS to refuse business from certain surety firms. The plaintiffs argued that Wolf was not duly appointed and thus lacked the authority to issue the rule. In 2021, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, who was duly appointed, ratified the rule.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that Wolf was not properly serving as Acting Secretary when he promulgated the rule and that Mayorkas's ratification was barred by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The district court vacated the rule, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the rule was improperly promulgated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FVRA did not bar Mayorkas from ratifying the rule and that the ratification cured any defects in the rule’s promulgation. The court explained that the Ratification Bar in the FVRA applies only to nondelegable functions or duties, which are those required by statute or regulation to be performed by the applicable officer and only that officer. Since the promulgation of the rule was a delegable duty, the ratification by Mayorkas was valid.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding was that the ratification by a duly appointed Secretary cured any defects in the rule’s initial promulgation by an improperly appointed Acting Secretary. View "GONZALES & GONZALES BONDS & INSURANCE AGENCY, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves Raymond Sefakor Yao Azumah, a Ghanaian national who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2010. After a trip to Ghana in 2014, Azumah was deemed inadmissible due to an intervening embezzlement conviction. Despite this, the government paroled Azumah into the country and initiated removal proceedings against him. These proceedings were later dismissed, and Azumah applied for citizenship. However, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application, arguing that Azumah was statutorily ineligible because he was not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” upon his return to the United States in 2014. The district court affirmed this denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court noted that Azumah was indeed “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” at all relevant times, including 2010, 2014, and when he sought citizenship, because he had the status of a legal permanent resident of the United States. The court did not interpret the agency regulation to impose upon Azumah the additional burden of showing that he was “lawfully admitted” rather than paroled when he returned to the United States in 2014. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Azumah v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Three Chinese individuals invested in a project to improve Philadelphia’s transit infrastructure as part of an effort to obtain EB-5 visas, which are visas for foreign investors who create jobs in the United States. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved their visa applications. However, due to the oversubscription of the EB-5 visa program, the investors were waiting in line for visas to become available. In 2022, Congress changed the eligibility requirements for EB-5 visas, creating a new category of “reserved” EB-5 visas for foreigners who invest in “infrastructure projects”. The investors believed that they should be eligible for the new “reserved” visas based on their past investments in infrastructure. They sued the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS, arguing that previous investments in already-approved infrastructure-focused projects should be eligible for reserved EB-5 visas. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the government had taken no final agency action that may be challenged at this time.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court agreed with the lower court that the arguments made by the appellants were premature. The court found that the statements made by USCIS in a Q&A and a policy manual merely clarified the existing process for seeking an immigration benefit and did not constitute final agency action. The court also noted that the appellants were not precluded from applying for reserved EB-5 visas. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the district court, dismissing the appellants' claims for lack of finality under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Delaware Valley Regional Center, LLC v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves an American citizen and her noncitizen husband who sued two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials, alleging that USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudicating a waiver application the husband submitted two years prior. The plaintiffs argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act granted subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims. The district court dismissed their claims, concluding that language in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that denies courts jurisdiction over suits based on agency “decisions or actions” also bars suits over agency inaction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, but for different reasons. The appellate court found that the district court erred in interpreting the INA's jurisdictional bar to include agency inaction. However, the court concluded that no statute or regulation requires USCIS to adjudicate the husband’s waiver application, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims. The court noted that while the delay in adjudication was stressful for the plaintiffs, their complaint should be addressed to the political branches, as the court lacked jurisdiction to order the relief sought. View "Lovo v. Miller" on Justia Law