Roland v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-072-17, 11 pp.) (Thacker, J.) No. 15-2529, March 8, 2017; USDC at Asheville, N.C. (Cogburn, J.) 4th Cir.
Holding: An American man who was denied a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, for admission of his wife, a UK citizen, because of the man’s prior criminal convictions for sexual offenses against minors, cannot have that denial reviewed in federal court; federal courts have no jurisdiction to review denial of the petition by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.
Based on appellant’s prior criminal convictions, the USCIS concluded appellant posed a risk to his wife, the beneficiary of his Form I-130, and thus denied the petition. The district court concluded the USCIS acted within its unreviewable discretion and granted summary judgment to the USCIS.
Appellants argue the district court had jurisdiction to review the USCIS’s decision. They contend they do not seek review of the agency determination itself, but rather of the legal and constitutional issues, which fall outside the jurisdictional bar. Appellants also assert that, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, they are challenging the standard of proof and the administrative process in adopting the rules which the USCIS used, and that they prevail on the merits.
The statute upon which jurisdiction hinges in this case is 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which provides that the USCIS has “sole and unreviewable discretion” to determine whether a petitioner poses no risk, meaning courts lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision. Section 1252(a)(2)(D) does permit judicial review of constitutional claims or legal questions, but only when raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals during removal proceedings.
A plain reading of the statute at issue here and our precedent forecloses judicial review in this case. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” certain discretionary decisions by the USCIS, which here includes the no-risk determination. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review that determination. Our precedent bolsters this conclusion, and our sister circuits are in accord.
Summary judgment for the agency affirmed.
