Santana Pouza v. USCIS Miami ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13377
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20651-FAM
SANTANA POUZA,
a.k.a. Santana Pouzo,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
USCIS MIAMI,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 1, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Santana Pouza, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals the
dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P
12(b)(1). Pouza sought an order directing the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to grant her parole into the United States. We affirm.
The district court correctly dismissed Pouza’s complaint. The decision
whether to parole an alien into the United States rests within the discretion of the
Secretary, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(a), and that discretionary
decision is shielded from judicial review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The district
court lacked authority to consider Pouza’s complaint under the Mandamus Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1361, because the Secretary did not owe Pouza a “clear nondiscretionary
duty.” Lifestar Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2004). And the district court could not review Pouza’s complaint under either
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, or the Declaratory Judgment
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because neither serves as an independent basis for subject-
matter jurisdiction. See Choctaw Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.2d 609,
615 (11th Cir. 1985) (addressing the Administrative Act); Borden v. Katzman, 881
F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1989) (addressing the Declaratory Judgment Act).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pouza’s complaint.
2