Kamel v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

Engi Ahmed Kamel and Ahmed Mohamed Kamel Abosamak are married. Kamel is a United States citizen, and Abosamak is not. Abosamak entered the United States on a K-1 visa, which is issued to people engaged to United States citizens. The couple married four days after Abosamak arrived in New York, on February 6, 2019.

According to the complaint, USCIS refused to allow Abosamak to use his preferred translator and required him to use a translator who spoke a different Arabic dialect. Abosamak also tried to correct parts of his application concerning a prior arrest and his completion of compulsory military service. He alleged that USCIS questioned these corrections to undermine his application and that the translator inaccurately conveyed his answers. When USCIS refused his renewed request for a translator who spoke his dialect, he ended the interview.

Claims and Motion

Kamel and Abosamak alleged that USCIS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious and that the refusal to provide an appropriate translator violated procedural due process, meaning the requirement that the government use fair procedures. They also alleged that the interview was a pretext and that USCIS had a longstanding policy of discriminating against Muslim applicants.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which limits federal-court review of judgments concerning adjustment of immigration status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The court explained that the Second Circuit’s decision in Xia v. Bondi held that this jurisdictional limit applies to USCIS decisions denying adjustment-of-status applications. The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland, which held that the provision bars review of factual findings underlying a denial and applies to judgments of whatever kind concerning relief under § 1255.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs were effectively asking it to review and set aside USCIS’s denial, even though they described their claims as challenges to procedural errors, translation problems, and due-process violations. The court held that those labels did not avoid the jurisdictional bar because the requested relief was to reopen and properly adjudicate Abosamak’s application.

The court further held that the provision allowing certain constitutional claims and legal questions to be reviewed by an appropriate federal court of appeals did not give this district court jurisdiction over the case. It rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on Sanusi v. Gonzales because that decision involved a different type of decision in removal proceedings, not USCIS’s denial of adjustment-of-status relief under § 1255.

Disposition

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 28 and close the case. The court did not decide whether USCIS’s handling of the interview, translation request, or application denial violated the law.