Abdullahi A.S. v. Tritten

Background

Abdullahi A.S. brought an action under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of his application to adjust his status to lawful permanent residency. He also invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act. The defendants were Leslie D. Tritten, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, William P. Barr, and Chad F. Wolf, sued in their official capacities.

USCIS determined that Abdullahi was eligible for adjustment of status but denied the application as a matter of discretion. It identified significant negative factors, including Abdullahi’s testimony that he authorized procedures on his two then-four-year-old daughters and contradictory employment dates in his immigration application. USCIS later dismissed Abdullahi’s motion to reopen or reconsider and affirmed the denial. In that decision, USCIS stated that the procedure Abdullahi called “Sunna” was considered a form of female genital mutilation and that his evidence did not establish that USCIS had applied the law or agency policy incorrectly.

Abdullahi asked the court to declare that his participation in female genital mutilation could not properly be considered a reason to deny his application. He also sought an order requiring the defendants to reconsider or re-adjudicate the application. He referred to an earlier federal district court decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 116(a), a federal statute criminalizing female genital mutilation, was unconstitutional.

Jurisdictional issue

The defendants filed a facial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. For a facial challenge, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Abdullahi’s favor.

The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprived federal district courts of jurisdiction to review a discretionary judgment concerning the granting of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Section 1255 governs adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency. The court emphasized that the jurisdictional bar applies regardless of whether the agency decision was made in removal proceedings. It also rejected Abdullahi’s arguments that the statute did not cover USCIS decisions, that it did not cover the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and that the agency had decided only a legal question rather than exercised discretion.

The court explained that USCIS had decided in Abdullahi’s favor on eligibility but had declined to exercise discretion in his favor. The court further stated that the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 116(a) was not essential to USCIS’s decisions because USCIS relied on multiple authorities and factors in treating Abdullahi’s participation as a significant negative factor. The Declaratory Judgment Act also did not independently provide federal jurisdiction.

Other motions and disposition

The court denied Abdullahi’s motion to amend the complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile. The proposed amendments would have stated that he was challenging USCIS’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 116(a), rather than its exercise of discretion, but the court concluded that this change would not avoid the jurisdictional bar.

The court also denied Abdullahi’s motion to declare 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) unconstitutional. It noted that the motion was raised separately, did not comply with a local rule, and lacked a coherent constitutional argument or supporting authority.

The order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied Abdullahi’s motion to amend the complaint, and denied Abdullahi’s motion to declare 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) unconstitutional. The action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.