This summary also appears under Immigration
Issues: Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the plaintiff's claims; The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 USC § 551 et seq.); Califano v. Sanders; "Federal question jurisdiction"; 28 USC § 1331; 5 USC §§ 701(a) & 704; "Fraud waiver"; 8 USC § 1182(i)(2); Whether the "termination of refugee status" and denial of a "status adjustment application" were "final agency actions" under the APA; Bangura v. Hansen; Bennett v. Spear; Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States; Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec. (1st Cir.); 8 USC § 1252(b)(9); Qureshi v. Holder (5th Cir.); United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Case Name: Jama v. Department of Homeland Sec.
e-Journal Number: 57687
Judge(s): Clay, Norris, and Kethledge
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff-Jama's complaint seeking judicial review of the USCIS's decisions to terminate his refugee status and to deny his application for a status adjustment, because these were "not 'final agency actions' reviewable in district court under the APA." The USCIS terminated the Jama's refugee status based on his allegedly "material factual misrepresentations in his application for refugee status." Although it is undisputed that Jama's claims "are reviewable in federal court at some stage prior to Jama's removal; the dispute in this case concerns when those actions are subject to review, and which federal court is vested with authority to hear the claims." Section 704 of the APA "authorizes judicial review of '[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court . . . .'" The APA "expressly does not permit judicial review in those instances where 'statutes preclude judicial review' or 'agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.'" The court concluded that the denial of Jama's fraud waiver application was "clearly 'agency action . . . committed to agency discretion by law.'" Thus, this portion of his complaint was properly dismissed. However, there was "no statute that precludes judicial review of USCIS's termination of Jama's refugee status or its denial of Jama's status adjustment application." To state a claim under the APA, he had to "'allege that [his] injury stems from a final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.'" The pivotal question under the APA was whether there was "a final decision on Jama's immigration status." The court applied the two-part test found in Bennett, and held that termination of refugee status and denial of a status adjustment application were only "intermediate steps in the removal of an alien, and not the consummation of the agencies' decisionmaking on the alien's immigration status." Once "a final decision is rendered - regardless of the nature of that decision, then Jama can seek review of that decision, as well as all intermediate decisions, including termination of Jama's refugee status."
© 2014 State Bar of Michigan