Herrera v. Bondi

Background

Plaintiff Olivia Montiel Herrera is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States on March 15, 1999 through a border inspection point. She resides in Minnesota and is married to a U.S. citizen. In February 2022, her husband filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative — a form used to classify a foreign-national spouse for immigration benefits — which USCIS approved in December 2023. Concurrently, Montiel Herrera filed an I-485 Application to Adjust Status, which is the form used to apply for lawful permanent resident (green card) status from within the United States.

USCIS issued a Request for Evidence asking Montiel Herrera to prove she had legally entered the country. She submitted an affidavit and additional documentation, but USCIS declined to accept that evidence and denied her I-485 application for failure to prove lawful entry. She appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office, which dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. She then filed this federal lawsuit on April 11, 2025.

Claims and Relief Sought

Montiel Herrera alleged two causes of action: (1) a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), claiming she met all statutory requirements for adjustment of status; and (2) a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702, arguing USCIS's denial was arbitrary and capricious. She asked the court to grant her I-485 application or order USCIS to grant it.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Defendants — the U.S. Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and USCIS officials — moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Their central argument was that the INA contains an explicit jurisdiction-stripping provision that bars federal courts from reviewing status-adjustment denials.

The Jurisdiction-Stripping Provision

The court's analysis centered on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which states that "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review" any judgment regarding relief under § 1255 or any discretionary decision of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security under the INA. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, which held that § 1252 sharply limits judicial review of the discretionary relief process — including factual findings made during a § 1255 determination, even where those findings result in a finding of ineligibility. The court found Montiel Herrera's INA claim plainly precluded.

APA Claim Also Barred

While the APA generally provides a broad right of judicial review of federal agency action, that right does not apply when another statute precludes judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). Citing the Eighth Circuit's decision in Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770 (8th Cir. 2024), the court held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)'s bar on review of discretionary acts under the INA also precludes APA review of I-485 denials. The court therefore dismissed the APA claim for lack of jurisdiction as well.

Montiel Herrera's Attempted Distinctions

Montiel Herrera argued her case differed from Patel because, unlike in Patel, she actually meets the statutory eligibility requirements for adjustment. The court rejected this argument, relying on Thigulla's holding that the Attorney General retains discretion to deny adjustment even after an applicant satisfies all statutory requirements. Meeting eligibility criteria does not create a right to judicial review of a denial.

Due Process Claim Raised in Briefing

For the first time in her response brief (not in the complaint), Montiel Herrera suggested her constitutional due process rights were violated. The court acknowledged that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves jurisdiction for constitutional claims, meaning such a claim would not be stripped by § 1252(a)(2)(B). However, the court declined to consider the due process argument for two independent reasons: (1) under Eighth Circuit precedent, a complaint cannot be amended by arguments raised in opposition to a motion to dismiss, see Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992 (8th Cir. 1989); and (2) even if properly pleaded, Montiel Herrera provided no legal analysis or authority supporting the claim that a discretionary denial of a status-adjustment application constitutes a due process violation.

Disposition

The court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the entire matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court's order states the case is "DISMISSED" and directs that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not use the phrases "with prejudice" or "without prejudice."