Molina Herrera v. Garland

Background

Jose Huberto Molina Herrera, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States unlawfully in January 2002. After immigration proceedings and an application for asylum and withholding of removal, he received U nonimmigrant status after being the victim of a robbery and attempted murder and cooperating with law enforcement. The immigration proceedings were later terminated.

In 2018, Molina Herrera applied to adjust his status from U nonimmigrant to permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m). USCIS denied the application on evidentiary and discretionary grounds. USCIS said he had not properly completed part of the application, had not provided required evidence concerning cooperation with law enforcement, and had not shown that favorable discretion was warranted. In weighing the application, USCIS treated his involvement in an earlier murder investigation as a negative factor and found that the positive factors did not outweigh the negative ones.

USCIS denied two motions to reconsider. Molina Herrera then brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking review of the denial. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the decision was discretionary and could not be reviewed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that agency decisions are generally presumed reviewable, but that presumption does not apply when a statute precludes review or when the agency’s action is committed to agency discretion by law.

First, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of judgments concerning relief under § 1255, which includes Molina Herrera’s status-adjustment application. Second, the court held that § 1255(m)(1) gives USCIS discretion to adjust status when, in the agency’s opinion, the applicant’s continued presence is justified by humanitarian grounds, family unity, or the public interest. USCIS’s weighing of the application’s positive and negative factors was therefore a discretionary determination.

The court recognized that district courts may review certain nondiscretionary agency decisions, including constitutional challenges. It assumed for purposes of the motion that USCIS’s denial was a final agency action because the defendants did not contend that removal proceedings were pending. But the court concluded that Molina Herrera had not shown that he was challenging a nondiscretionary decision. His arguments that USCIS acted irrationally, violated due process, or improperly considered the old investigation all challenged the agency’s weighing of evidence and exercise of discretion.

The court also rejected Molina Herrera’s arguments that USCIS could not consider his juvenile involvement in a murder investigation or had to accept his later statement instead of his earlier testimony. The court stated that USCIS could consider unfavorable conduct that had not resulted in a conviction when weighing the application, and that the record did not show that the agency was prohibited from treating the investigation as a negative factor.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Administrative Procedure Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice. The order disposed of Docket No. 15, and the clerk was directed to close the file.