Appellate Jurisdiction Over Denials of Permanent Residence
In Shaiban v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of an immigrant’s application for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), courts lack jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions in the immigration context. And the government has discretion when it comes to adjusting an asylee’s status to that of permanent resident.
The Petition in Shaiban
The plaintiff in Shaiban was initially granted asylum. Several years later, he applied for permanent residence.
The U.S. Customs and Immigration Services denied that application. It determined that the plaintiff was ineligible for permanent residence on terrorism grounds, concluding that the plaintiff’s membership in certain organizations qualified as terrorist activity.
The plaintiff sought review in the district court, which granted summary judgment to the government. The plaintiff then sought review in the Fourth Circuit.
No Jurisdiction Over Permanent-Residence Decisions
The Fourth Circuit concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) stripped it of jurisdiction to review the denial of permanent residence.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) generally bars appellate review of the the Attorney General or Secretary’s discretionary decisions. In relevant part, it says that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), . . . and regardless of whether the . . . decision . . . is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . 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 [their] discretion.” And the decision to grant permanent residence to an asylee is discretionary. The power to adjust status comes from 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), which says that “[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General” “may adjust [] the status of” a foreign national granted asylum “in the Secretary’s or the Attorney General’s discretion.”
Putting these provisions together, appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review the denial of permanent residence.
The Fourth Circuit added that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Patel v. Garland supported this conclusion. Patel held that a neighboring statutory provision—§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)—barred appellate review of adjustment-of-status decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).
To be sure, Patel didn’t apply directly to the present case. It arose out of removal proceedings (not a suit seeking permanent residence) and involved a jurisdiction-stripping statute with slightly different language.
But Patel suggested—and § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s language says—that these jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply outside of the removal context. And since § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (the relevant provision in the present case) is supposed to be a catchall following § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (the relevant provision in Patel), the Fourth Circuit saw no reason not to apply Patel’s broad reading of the statute.
Shaiban v. Jaddou, 2024 WL 1422735 (4th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Wilkinson v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals could review whether an immigration petitioner had shown the hardship necessary to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The majority thought that this holding was a straightforward extension of 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr. But several justices doubted that Congress intended for such a […]
Continue reading....
Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, several courts of appeals have reexamined the scope of their jurisdiction in immigration appeals. Last week produced another example. In Hernandez v. Garland, the Sixth Circuit held that it could review “good moral character” determinations in immigration appeals, as those determinations involve a mixed question […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of factual and discretionary issues. But a savings clause preserves jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists to review mixed questions of law and fact—i.e., the application […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of decisions made in immigration proceedings. A savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. Until recently, most (if not all) courts of appeals broadly read the jurisdiction-stripping provisions to bar appellate review in a variety […]
Continue reading....
The appellate-jurisdiction provisions of immigration law can get complicated. The law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of issues. But a savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in last year’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
Sometimes a district court doesn’t resolve all the claims in an action. The district court might overlook one of a plaintiff’s many claims. Or the district court might forget about counterclaims or crossclaims. Regardless of what happened, the district court has explicitly resolved only part of an action. If the district court thereafter enters judgment […]
Continue reading....
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....