Appellate Decisions

Appellate Jurisdiction Over Denials of Permanent Residence

The Fourth Circuit concluded that courts lack jurisdiction to review the denial of an application for permanent residence.

April 15, 2024

By Bryan Lammon

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

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

Wilkinson & Appellate Review of Hardship Determinations
The Supreme Court held that courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review hardship determinations in immigration appeals. But several justices doubted that this was Congress’s intent.
Reviewing “Good Moral Character” Determinations in Immigration Appeals
Following its earlier ruling on hardship determinations, the Sixth Circuit held that it can review “good moral character” determinations in cancellation-of-removal cases.
New Cert Petition on Reviewing Hardship Determinations in Immigration Appeals
The courts of appeals have split over whether they can review hardship determinations in immigration appeals. A new cert petition would let the Supreme Court weigh in.
The Seventh Circuit on Guerrero-Lasprilla & Cancellation of Removal
The Seventh Circuit suggested (but didn’t hold) that Guerrero-Lasprilla applies in the cancellation-of-removal context.
Appealing Hardship Determinations in Immigration Cases
The courts of appeals have recently split on whether they have jurisdiction to review hardship determinations in cancellation-of-removal cases.