Ambati v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

Background

Vasudeva Raju Ambati, whom the opinion describes as an Indian national, sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), its Acting Director, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. He challenged USCIS’s finding that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which bars a noncitizen from obtaining an immigration benefit through fraud or willful misrepresentation. Ambati relied on the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Mandamus Act.

Ambati had worked in the United States since at least 2004 and had previously worked for Vision Systems Group Inc. (VSG). VSG filed employment-based immigration petitions for him, and USCIS approved and extended his H-1B status multiple times. In 2016, he began working for Baha Industries Corporation, doing business as Open Systems Technology. In 2020, that company filed an employment petition for him, and Ambati filed an application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. USCIS approved the employment petition but later denied the adjustment application and found Ambati inadmissible.

USCIS later notified Ambati that it would reopen and reconsider his application but intended to deny it again. The agency stated that Ambati had not shown that he was working for the employer listed in the approved employment petition and had not shown that he had not committed fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with his earlier employment. USCIS also relied on VSG officers’ admissions in a 2010 plea agreement concerning a fraudulent immigration scheme. After Ambati submitted additional materials, USCIS issued a January 17, 2025 decision again finding him inadmissible and declining to waive that finding.

Arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when a federal court lacks legal power to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction. Ambati argued principally that the statutory bar on reviewing adjustment-of-status decisions did not apply to his inadmissibility finding. He maintained that the finding was separate from the denial of his adjustment application because it relied on facts from his earlier employment. He also challenged the government’s reliance on the finding despite its earlier approval of his H-1B petitions.

Court’s reasoning

The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act barred review. The Act generally prevents courts from reviewing a judgment concerning the granting of certain discretionary immigration relief, including adjustment of status. Relying on Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, the Court explained that this restriction covers not only the ultimate denial of relief but also factual findings and other judgments connected to that denial.

The Court concluded that USCIS’s inadmissibility finding was a judgment concerning its denial of Ambati’s application for lawful permanent-resident status. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction—meaning the legal authority to decide the dispute—to review the finding. The Court rejected Ambati’s arguments that the finding was separate, non-discretionary, or invalid because USCIS had previously approved his H-1B petitions. It also held that the Administrative Procedure Act, the Mandamus Act, and the federal-question statute could not provide a way around the Immigration and Nationality Act’s jurisdictional bar.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). It did not address the defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The Court declined to allow Ambati to amend the complaint again, stating that amendment would be futile because there was no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.