Doe v. Mayorkas

Background

John Doe, whom the court identified as a Mexican citizen and referred to by that name to protect his identity, entered the United States unlawfully in 2003, according to the complaint. He applied to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in 2012 for temporary U-nonimmigrant status, a temporary immigration benefit for noncitizens who are victims of qualifying criminal activity. USCIS granted him that status from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2018.

Before his status expired, Doe applied to extend it, arguing that financial hardship had prevented him from applying earlier for lawful permanent resident status. USCIS denied the extension application in February 2020. USCIS later denied his application for lawful permanent resident status because his U-nonimmigrant status had expired before he filed that application.

Doe sued Alejandro Mayorkas, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and Laura Zuchowski in their official capacities. He asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause, and sought an order requiring agency action. Doe waived his pattern-and-practice claim, constitutional claim, and retroactive-denial claim.

Jurisdictional analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. They alternatively moved under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court decided the case under Rule 12(b)(1) and did not reach the alternative motion or the merits of Doe’s claims.

For the application to become a lawful permanent resident, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) barred review. That provision removes federal-court jurisdiction over any judgment concerning relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, including the adjustment-of-status application Doe filed under § 1255(m). The court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the phrase “any judgment” and on Eighth Circuit precedent involving a USCIS denial of an I-485 application. The court also held that the exception in § 1252(a)(2)(D) for constitutional claims and legal questions applies to review by courts of appeals, not to this district-court action.

The court separately held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of USCIS’s denial of Doe’s application to extend his U-nonimmigrant status. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6), the Secretary of Homeland Security may extend that status when the Secretary determines that exceptional circumstances warrant an extension. The court concluded that this authority is discretionary and that the statute therefore prevents judicial review of USCIS’s decision. The court rejected Doe’s argument that USCIS’s stated reason involved only a legal eligibility determination rather than discretion.

Disposition

The court concluded that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts Three, Four, and Nine, which concerned the denial of Doe’s lawful-permanent-resident application, or over Counts One, Six, and Seven, which concerned the denial of his status-extension application. The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Eric C. Tostrud did not decide whether the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the Constitution.