Azatullah v. Wolf

Background

Ahmad Seir Azatullah sought judicial review of USCIS’s April 2019 denial of his application to adjust his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident. He had received asylum in 2001 and later applied for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). USCIS denied the application after determining that he was inadmissible under the terrorism-related provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he had provided material support to a terrorist organization. USCIS also stated that Azatullah would not lose his asylum status.

Azatullah’s complaint asserted five claims. He argued that USCIS was barred from making the inadmissibility finding because he had previously been granted asylum; that the denial was arbitrary and unreasonable; that USCIS improperly determined he was ineligible for a Limited General Exemption; that the denial was pretextual; and that he was entitled to declaratory relief. Azatullah voluntarily consented to dismissal of the Limited General Exemption and pretext claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional issue

The defendants argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review the denial. That provision bars courts from reviewing certain immigration decisions, including decisions about relief whose approval is placed in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.

The court concluded that adjustment of status under § 1159(b) is discretionary because the statute states that the Secretary or Attorney General “may adjust” the status of an eligible person “in the Secretary’s or the Attorney General’s discretion.” The court therefore held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of the adjustment decision.

The court further held that the jurisdictional bar covered both discretionary and nondiscretionary issues connected to the adjustment decision. Relying substantially on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a related provision in Patel v. Garland, the court reasoned that the statute’s references to “any other decision or action” were broad enough to include Azatullah’s legal and procedural challenges, not merely the ultimate exercise of discretion.

Other arguments

The court rejected Azatullah’s argument that Second Circuit precedent required the court to review his legal challenges. It distinguished Sepulveda v. Gonzales because that case involved a different statutory subsection and a petition for review filed directly in the court of appeals. The court also concluded that Patel had undermined the distinction between discretionary and nondiscretionary determinations on which Azatullah relied.

The court rejected Azatullah’s argument that § 1252(a)(2)(B) applied only to decisions made in removal proceedings. The statute expressly applies “regardless of whether” the decision is made in removal proceedings, the court said. The court also rejected reliance on the presumption favoring judicial review because it found the statutory language to be clear evidence that Congress intended to prevent district-court review of claims like Azatullah’s.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not reach the merits as the basis for its disposition. In a footnote, however, the court stated that, even if jurisdiction existed, it would conclude that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment: collateral estoppel did not apply because the terrorism-bar issue had not actually been litigated during the asylum proceeding, and USCIS had adequately explained its decision under the applicable standard of review.