Santos-Torres v. Houghton

Background

Sandro Yobani Santos-Torres sued Timothy J. Houghton, Tracy Renaud, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the United States Department of Homeland Security. He alleged that USCIS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by denying his Form I-212 application to reapply for admission after deportation or removal.

Santos-Torres entered the United States in February 2004 and was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. He did not receive a later hearing notice because he had relocated, did not attend the hearing, and was ordered removed in absentia on July 28, 2004. He did not leave the United States. In 2019, he applied to USCIS for permission to reapply for admission. USCIS denied the application in 2020, finding that favorable factors—including hardship to relatives, family unity, and conditions in his home country—were outweighed by unfavorable factors, including his removal order, failure to attend the hearing, and failure to depart.

Santos-Torres asked the district court to set aside USCIS’s decision and compel the agency to grant his application. He challenged USCIS’s consideration of his prior removal and his failure to appear at the hearing. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) because it lacked jurisdiction. It first concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions. The court treated USCIS’s denial of the I-212 application as a discretionary decision and therefore not reviewable to the extent Santos-Torres challenged USCIS’s factfinding, weighing of factors, or exercise of discretion.

The court also concluded that the requested relief would indirectly challenge Santos-Torres’s removal order. Although granting the I-212 application would not itself invalidate that order, the court stated that the application was a necessary prerequisite to Santos-Torres’s ultimate goal of adjusting his status. Under the INA, the court explained, review of a removal order—including an indirect challenge—must proceed through a petition for review in an appropriate court of appeals, not in the district court.

The court rejected Santos-Torres’s argument that he was raising reviewable legal questions by claiming that USCIS considered improper factors. The INA exception for constitutional claims and questions of law requires those claims to be raised in a petition for review filed in an appropriate court of appeals. Because this case was brought in the district court, the exception did not provide jurisdiction here.

The court further held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not supply jurisdiction. The statute does not authorize review when another statute precludes judicial review or when the agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. Because the INA precluded review on both grounds identified by the court, the Administrative Procedure Act did not change the result.

Disposition

The court did not reach the defendants’ alternative Rule 12(b)(6) argument or the merits of whether USCIS improperly denied the application. Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, and ordered the case closed. The opinion did not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice.