Abuzeid v. Wolf

ADIL MOHAMED ABUZEID et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAD L. WOLF et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-382 (TJK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

December 22, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dr. Adil Abuzeid, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, applied for adjustment of his status in this country to lawful permanent residency under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. His applications were denied several times, and he and his wife now request that this Court review, and effectively reverse, those decisions. Defendants argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to do so because Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) commands that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255 of this title." Plaintiffs argue, to the contrary, that although Defendants' ultimate exercise of discretion may be unreviewable, Dr. Abuzeid's eligibility for that status under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e) is a question of law that this Court may review. The Court ultimately agrees with Defendants that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) means what it says. Thus, for substantially the same reasons this Court explained in Verastegui v. Wolf, 468 F. Supp. 3d 94 (D.D.C. 2020), it finds that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars judicial review of Defendants' decisions denying Dr. Abuzeid's adjustment of status applications and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. Background

Dr. Abuzeid is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. ECF No. 8 ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 1. He entered the United States in October 2001 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J) to pursue graduate medical education. Id. ¶ 19-20. In June 2015, he filed an I-485 application for an adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident in connection with his pending employment-based visa petition, under regulations promulgated under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Am. Compl. ¶ 26. That decision is ultimately a discretionary one. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2) ("[T]he Attorney General may adjust the status of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if [the statutory eligibility requirements are satisfied].") (emphasis added).

In November 2017, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his application because the agency found him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e).¹ See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 72-113; ECF No. 10-8. That provision requires that to be eligible for lawful permanent resident status, those like Dr. Abuzeid who come to the United States to pursue graduate medical education must establish that they have "resided and been physically present in the country of [their] nationality or [their] last residence for an aggregate of at least two years following departure from the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e).

Plaintiffs filed this suit in February 2018. ECF No. 1. In July 2018, USCIS reopened its decision and in October 2018, again denied Dr. Abuzeid's application for substantially the same reason. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 114-163; ECF No. 10-10.² Throughout the administrative process, Dr. Abuzeid argued that he met the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e) through a series of tripshe took to the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia from August 2007 to August 2012—after his "J-1" status expired and he departed the United States—which he alleges yielded him a cumulative total of 806 days in these countries. See Am. Compl. ¶ 23. But USCIS concluded that under the statute he could not combine the time he spent in both nations to meet the two-year requirement; he had to rely only on his time in the United Kingdom. See ECF No. 10-10 at 5, 7; ECF No. 10-11 at 3. Further, USCIS determined, he had not submitted enough evidence to show that he had resided and been physically present in the United Kingdom during all the time he claimed. See ECF No. 10-8 at 5-7; ECF No. 10-10 at 5-9.

In October 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, alleging that Defendants' denials of Dr. Abuzeid's adjustment of status applications violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 182-193. Plaintiffs request that the Court (1) issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants' adjudications and denials of Dr. Abuzeid's adjustment of status applications were unlawful, that he is eligible to apply for an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, and that his applications were meritorious and should be approved; and (2) order Defendants to approve his adjustment of status applications. See id. at 54-56.

In May 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In sum, they argue that USCIS's decisions to deny Plaintiffs' applications were discretionary "judgment[s] regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255" that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). ECF No. 26-1. Plaintiffs assert, to the contrary, that although "the ultimate exercise of discretion may be unreviewable, the issue of eligibility is a question of law that is subject to review." ECF No. 27 ("Opp.") at 6.

II. Legal Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court has jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). In evaluating such a motion, the Court must accept as true factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in a plaintiff's favor. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 498 F. Supp. 2d 293, 296 (D.D.C. 2007). Additionally, "where necessary, the court may consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

III. Analysis

"Like all federal courts, the district court is a court of limited jurisdiction." Belhas v. Ya'alon, 515 F.3d 1279, 1282 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The "federal question" statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, typically provides jurisdiction for suits brought under the APA or alleging constitutional claims. Trudeau v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 456 F.3d 178, 184-85 (D.C. Cir. 2006). There are certain statutes, however, that prevent courts from exercising Section 1331 federal question jurisdiction over specific types of claims. See, e.g., Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 10 (2000) (Social Security and Medicare Act claims rely exclusively on 42 U.S.C. 405(g) jurisdiction). The INA is such a statute.

The relevant part of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), is titled "Denials of discretionary relief." It directs that "[n]otwithstanding 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":

(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title, or

(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Subparagraph (D), which Congress added to the INA through the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302,³ is titled "Judicial review of certain legal claims"; it clarifies that despite the INA's bar on judicial review of agency judgments under Section 1255, "[n]othing in subparagraph (B) . . . shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And as the statute makes clear elsewhere, "a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . [is] the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal." Id. § 1252(a)(5).

In summary, through subparagraph (B), "Congress expressly included decisions to deny relief under § 1255 within this jurisdiction-limiting provision," and in subparagraph (D), "Congress made explicit that despite the jurisdiction-stripping language of § 1252(a)(2)(B), courts of appeals"—not district courts—"retain a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief," and "only in the context of removal proceedings." Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 592 F.3d612, 619-20 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up); see Schroeck v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 947, 950-51 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing the jurisdiction of courts of appeals).

This suit falls within this jurisdictional bar, as the Fourth Circuit held in the same circumstances in Lee. 592 F.3d at 619 ("Congress expressly included decisions to deny relief under § 1255 within this jurisdiction-limiting provision; therefore, the denial of an application for adjustment of status . . . is not amenable to judicial review."). Dr. Abuzeid applied for adjustment of status several times under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Am. Compl. ¶ 26. Each time, USCIS denied his applications because it found him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e). See ECF No. 10-8 at 7; ECF No. 10-10 at 8; ECF No. 10-11 at 4. Plaintiffs brought this case to reverse those decisions. See Am. Compl. at 54-56. But Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes district courts from reviewing "any" such "judgment[s] regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255." See Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2008...