Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Montoya v. United States

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 28, 2018

JULIO RODARTE MONTOYA, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. CITINZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, and KRISTI BARROWS, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. # 31), which the Plaintiff Julio Rodarte Montoya opposes (Doc. # 35). The sole issue presented for review is whether this Court has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to hear Mr. Rodarte's challenge to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) denial of his application for adjustment of status, given that removal proceedings are simultaneously pending against him. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction over this action and must accordingly dismiss this case.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Mr. Rodarte is a native and citizen of Mexico who lives in Aurora, Colorado. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 4.) Mr. Rodarte last departed from the United States sometime in July 2006; he then re-entered in August 2006 after being inspected and admitted using his border crossing card. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.) On August 15, 2016, Mr. Rodarte filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status. (Id. at ¶ 3.) USCIS denied his application on April 27, 2017, finding that Mr. Rodarte was inadmissible to the United States under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). (Id. at ¶ 13.)

         On June 14, 2017, Mr. Rodarte commenced this action seeking judicial review of USCIS's denial of his application for a status adjustment under the APA. (Doc. # 1.) At the time, Mr. Rodarte had no other remedies to pursue. On January 9, 2018, Defendants issued a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging Mr. Rodarte as removable under the INA. (Doc. # 31 at 7-9.) A removal proceeding hearing is scheduled for May 2018. (Doc. # 31 at 2, n. 2.)

         Defendants' instant Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 16, 2018, argues that the recently-filed NTA and pending removal proceedings strip this Court of jurisdiction because the challenged USCIS denial is not final as required under the APA, given that Mr. Rodarte “can continue to pursue his application for adjustment of status through administrative channels.” (Id. at 1-2.)

         II. LAW

         A. FINALITY UNDER THE APA

         Under the APA, agency action is subject to judicial review only when it is either: (1) made reviewable by statute; or (2) a “final” action “for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. No statute authorizes judicial review over denials of status adjustment, so the Court must determine whether USCIS's denial of the Mr. Gomez's application was a “final” agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy.

         Generally, two conditions must be satisfied for agency action to be “final” under the APA. “First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency's decision-making process-it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S.Ct. 1807, 1813 (2016) (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)); see also Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 797 (1992) (“The core question is whether the agency has completed its decision-making process, and whether the result of that process is one that will directly affect the parties.”). An agency action is not final if it “does not of itself adversely affect complainant but only affects his rights adversely on the contingency of future administrative action.” Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 130 (1939); Jama v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 760 F.3d 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2014).

         Likewise, the APA establihes that agency action is “final” and therefore “subject to judicial review” only after “an aggrieved party has exhausted all administrative remedies expressly prescribed by statute or agency rule.” Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704).

         B. FINALITY OF A CHALLENGE TO DENIAL OF STATUS ADJUSTMENT

         Broadly speaking, “adjustment of status” is an application filed by an alien who is physically in the United States to adjust his non-immigrant status to immigrant status, i.e. permanent resident status.

         Pursuant to 8 C.F.R 245.2(a)(5)(ii), “No appeal lies from the denial of an application [for an adjustment of status]. . . but the applicant . . . retains the right to renew his or his application in proceedings under 8 CFR part 240, ” i.e. in removal proceedings. In other words, without a pending removal proceeding, a denial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.