Gaytan Mendoza v. Mayorkas ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20043 Document: 00516921803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 5, 2023
No. 23-20043
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Maria Daniel Gaytan Mendoza,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Ur M. Jaddou; Carroll Wallace,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-4008
______________________________
Before King, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Appellant Jose Maria Daniel Gaytan Mendoza appeals the district
court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Finding that the
district court correctly held it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of
Mendoza’s application for adjust, we AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20043 Document: 00516921803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
No. 23-20043
Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, first entered the United States in 1995.
He returned to Mexico in 2005. When he attempted to reenter the United
States in November 2005, he showed his school ID and claimed to be a
United States citizen. He was permitted entrance.
In 2015, after marrying a United States citizen, Mendoza filed an
application to adjust his residency status to permanent resident. His
application was denied because of his false representation of citizenship in
November 2005.
After exhausting other avenues of relief, Mendoza filed a complaint
against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) (the Defendants) in the Southern
District of Texas, seeking review of USCIS’s action, a declaratory judgment
that USCIS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with the
law when it denied his application, and relief under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to compel USCIS to reopen and adjudicate his
application by applying the proper legal standard. The Defendants moved
for summary judgment, which the district court granted, and Mendoza timely
appealed.
The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial
of Mendoza’s application for adjustment. It concluded that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1242(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review because the decision to deny Mendoza
an adjustment of his status to permanent resident was a discretionary
decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). It further concluded that
§ 1252(a)(2)(D)’s exception, preserving judicial review for constitutional
claims and questions of law, did not apply.
On appeal, Mendoza argues that (1) the denial of his application was
not discretionary such that § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not bar judicial review and
2
Case: 23-20043 Document: 00516921803 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
No. 23-20043
(2) even if § 1252(a)(2)(B) applies, his case falls within the § 1252(a)(2)(D)’s
exception for constitutional claims and questions of law.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Hudson v. Lincare,
Inc., 58 F.4th 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2023). Under § 1255, the Attorney General
has discretion to adjust the status of a noncitizen that is “admissible” under
8 U.S.C. § 1182. See § 1255(a) (“The status of any alien . . . may be adjusted
by the Attorney General, in his discretion. . . .”). A noncitizen who falsely
represents his citizenship is deemed inadmissible. See §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii),
1182(i).
As the district court found, § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review of
Mendoza’s claims. In Patel v. Garland, the Supreme Court confronted
similar facts in which a noncitizen sought adjustment of status in removal
proceedings under § 1255 but was denied for previously falsely stating that
he was a U.S. citizen. 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1619-20 (2022). In determining that
judicial review was barred, the Supreme Court held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
“prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under
§ 1255 and the other enumerated provisions. . . . Here, ‘any’ means that the
provision applies to judgments ‘of whatever kind’ under § 1255, not just
discretionary judgments or the last-in-time judgment.” Id. at 1622. Thus,
the denial of Mendoza’s status adjustment under § 1255 triggers
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)’s bar for judicial review.
Mendoza’s claim is not saved by the exception in § 1252(a)(2)(D),
which preserves jurisdiction for courts of appeal to consider constitutional
claims and questions of law raised in petitions for review. The statute states:
Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision
of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or
eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding
review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon
3
Case: 23-20043 Document: 00516921803 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
No. 23-20043
a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in
accordance with this section.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added). Though Mendoza raises a legal
issue about scienter, this case does not involve a petition for review.1
Mendoza did not file his action directly in the Fifth Circuit to contest a
decision by the BIA. Instead, he filed a complaint directly in the district court
against DHS and USCIS under the APA. Thus, by its plain text,
§ 1252(a)(2)(D)’s exception does not apply.
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
1
Multiple courts have held that similar suits are not petitions for review and that
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) does not preserve jurisdiction in district courts. See, e.g., Ike v. USCIS,
No. 3:21-CV-2320-D, 2022 WL 2078214, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2022) (civil suit
involving the APA and other causes of action filed in district court); U.S. ex rel. Vaso v.
Chertoff, 369 F. App’x 395, 402 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (same); Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545
F.3d 229, 235 (2d Cir. 2008) (“While the statute creates an exception for ‘constitutional
claims or questions of law,’ see id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), jurisdiction to review such claims is
vested exclusively in the courts of appeals. . ..”); Easwarankudyil v. Hazuda, No. 3:13-CV-
4166-P, 2014 WL 11498059, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2014), aff’d, 600 F. App’x 254 (5th
Cir. 2015) (“[T]his Court is not the proper place to raise a review of constitutional claims
or questions of law. Rather, § 1252(a)(2)(D) provides that constitutional claims or
questions of law may be reviewed upon a ‘petition for review filed with an appropriate court
of appeals.’”).
4