Decisions of Interest

The petitioner argued that the court had subject matter jurisdiction based on one or more of the following: the federal question statute (28 U.S.C. ' 1331); the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. ' 701 et seq.); the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. ' 1361); and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. ' 2201).

The district court determined that 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) controlled in the jurisdictional question. It states, in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), … and except as provided in subparagraph (D), and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review … any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ' 1255 of this title.” The court stated, “The Amended Petition's Prayer for Relief asks, in sum and substance, that the Court declare that [the petitioner] is eligible to adjust his status, issue an injunction prohibiting respondents from relying on [his] divorce in adjudicating the I-485 Application, and issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to reopen the I-485 Application. Granting any of the requested relief would necessarily require that the Court review a judgment regarding the granting of relief under 8 U.C.C. ' 1255. Thus, the Amended Petition, fairly read, requests precisely the review of respondents' decision that is forbidden by Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).” The subparagraph (D) exception mentioned in 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) also did not apply, because it deals with appeals, and the district court is not an appellate court. Thus, the court concluded, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

'

District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Disturb Marriage-Based Immigration Status Finding

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a man's petition seeking an order to overturn a determination of his immigrant status based on his marriage, as the district court was without jurisdiction. Ansah v. Napolitano, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9389 (S.D.N.Y. 1/23/13).

The petitioner is a man who sought to remain in the United States based on the fact that he had married a U.S. citizen. The couple are now divorced. After his request for permanent resident status was denied by federal immigration authorities, he filed a petition in the federal district court for a Writ of Mandamus and for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel these authorities to adjust his status to that of permanent resident of the United States. The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The petitioner argued that the court had subject matter jurisdiction based on one or more of the following: the federal question statute (28 U.S.C. ' 1331); the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. ' 701 et seq.); the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. ' 1361); and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. ' 2201).

The district court determined that 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) controlled in the jurisdictional question. It states, in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), … and except as provided in subparagraph (D), and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review … any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ' 1255 of this title.” The court stated, “The Amended Petition's Prayer for Relief asks, in sum and substance, that the Court declare that [the petitioner] is eligible to adjust his status, issue an injunction prohibiting respondents from relying on [his] divorce in adjudicating the I-485 Application, and issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondents to reopen the I-485 Application. Granting any of the requested relief would necessarily require that the Court review a judgment regarding the granting of relief under 8 U.C.C. ' 1255. Thus, the Amended Petition, fairly read, requests precisely the review of respondents' decision that is forbidden by Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).” The subparagraph (D) exception mentioned in 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) also did not apply, because it deals with appeals, and the district court is not an appellate court. Thus, the court concluded, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

'