Duarte v. Mayorkas

Decision Date03 March 2022
Docket Number19-20168,19-20213,No. 18-20784,consolidated with Nos. 19-20046,18-20784
Citation27 F.4th 1044
Parties Karla Yesenia DUARTE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alejandro MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, in his official capacity as the Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Mark Siegl, in his official capacity as the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Houston Field Office Defendants—Appellees, Selvin Ixel Rivera Isaula, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, in his official capacity as the Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Mark Siegl, in his official capacity as the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Houston Field Office Defendants—Appellees, Hilma Haydee Jezek, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, in his official capacity as the Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Mark Siegl, in his official capacity as the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Houston Field Office, Defendants—Appellees, Jesus Cruz, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lee Cissna, in his official capacity as the Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Mark Siegl, in his official capacity as the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Houston Field Office Defendants—Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Ross Alan Miller, Aaron Prabhu, Esq., Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Amanda Waterhouse, Waterhouse Dominguez & Strom, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Mary Lynn Larakers, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation - District Court Section, Washington, DC, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before Dennis, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge:

Karla Duarte, Selvin Ixel Rivera Isaula, Hilma Haydee Jezek, and Jesus Cruz (collectively, "the Appellants") are Honduran immigrants who were ordered deported but then granted Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") after the Attorney General determined aliens could not be safely returned to Honduras in the aftermath of a 1999 hurricane. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS")1 later issued "advance parole" documents to the Appellants that authorized them to temporarily travel abroad. Following their return, the Appellants each filed an application with USCIS to adjust his or her immigration status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident. USCIS administratively closed the Appellants' cases, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because, notwithstanding their recent readmittance to the country, the Appellants were not "arriving aliens" within the meaning of the relevant regulations.

The Appellants each brought suit in federal district court challenging USCIS's decision as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). In three of the four cases, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the challenge because the Appellants were indirectly attacking their respective deportation orders. In the fourth case, the district court converted the Government's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted the motion without comment, seemingly finding that USCIS's determination was correct on the merits. On appeal, the cases were consolidated before this court.

Because we hold that the Appellants' claims are not indirect challenges to their deportation orders, we REVERSE the district courts that dismissed the Appellants' cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, we conclude that USCIS was correct that the Appellants are not "arriving aliens" within the meaning of the relevant regulation. Although we agree with our partially dissenting colleague as to the ultimate result on this latter question, we differ in our reasons for reaching that conclusion. Most notably, we determine that USCIS erred by characterizing the Appellants' travel and reentry as advance parole because Congress has statutorily provided that TPS beneficiaries returning from authorized travel abroad must be admitted into the country in the same immigration status they held prior to departure. Because the Appellants were not parolees waiting for their applications to be processed prior to departing the country, their statuses could not be converted to those of paroled aliens upon their return. Rather, the Appellants were fully admitted into the country upon their return and thus were not arriving aliens when they submitted their applications for adjustment of status. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Government.

I.
A.

The Appellants are natives and citizens of Honduras who were ordered deported from the United States prior to April 1, 1997.2 On January 5, 1999, the U.S. Attorney General designated Honduras for TPS after determining that extensive damage from Hurricane Mitch had made it unsafe to return aliens to the country. Designation of Honduras Under Temporary Protected Status, 64 Fed. Reg. 524 (Jan. 5, 1999). TPS is a statutorily created designation that affords eligible aliens temporary protection from deportation or removal until conditions in their home country allow for their safe return. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. Each of the Appellants applied for and was granted TPS, and, accordingly, they were permitted to remain in the United States.

While under TPS, each of the Appellants had an I-130 visa petition filed on his or her behalf by a U.S.-citizen or legal-permanent-resident relative, and USCIS approved each petition, thereby establishing that each Appellant had a family connection that would allow him or her to apply for legal immigration.3 Each appellant also sought and obtained permission from USCIS to travel outside of the United States; USCIS issued each a 512L Authorization for Parole of an Alien into the United States, which the parties refer to as an "advance parole" document, and the Appellants used these official papers to travel abroad and then reenter the country.

Following their returns, each appellant filed with USCIS a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, seeking to adjust his or her immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident pursuant to their approved I-130 visa petitions. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1), the Immigration Court—a component of the Department of Justice—has exclusive jurisdiction over any applications for adjustment of status filed by an alien who had previously been placed in deportation proceedings unless the applicant is an "arriving alien," in which case exclusive jurisdiction lies with USCIS—a component of the Department of Homeland Security. USCIS determined that the Appellants had previously been placed in deportation proceedings and were not "arriving aliens" within the meaning of the regulation, and the agency thus concluded the Appellants were required to file their applications with the Immigration Court if they wished for the applications to be adjudicated. USCIS accordingly administratively closed each of the Appellants' Form I-485 applications based on a lack of jurisdiction.

B.

Each of the Appellants filed actions in federal district court challenging USCIS's closure of their cases as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In each instance, the Government filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, or, alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Government contended that, if the court ordered USCIS to adjudicate the Appellants' applications for adjustment of status and USCIS then granted the applications, it would render the Appellants' outstanding deportation orders unenforceable, meaning the relief the Appellants sought was "inextricably linked" to the validity of their deportation orders. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) strip district courts of jurisdiction to hear direct and indirect challenges to a final deportation order, the Government argued that the district courts were without jurisdiction to hear the Appellants' claims.

Alternatively, the Government argued that even if the district courts had jurisdiction to hear the Appellants' challenge, the claims should be dismissed because USCIS's decision was correct on the merits. Although an alien returning to the country on advanced parole is ordinarily an "arriving alien," the Government conceded, the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 ("MTINA") specifically provide that a TPS beneficiary who returns from temporary authorized travel abroad "shall," barring certain crimes, "be inspected and admitted in the same immigration status the alien had at the time of departure." Pub. L. 102-232, § 304(c)(1)(A), 105 Stat. 1733 (1991).4 Because the Appellants were not "arriving aliens" at the time of their departure, the Government contended that they were not "arriving aliens" upon their return, and USCIS was therefore correct that the Appellants' unterminated removal proceedings deprived it of jurisdiction over their applications for adjustment of status.

In Isaula's, Jezek's, and Cruz's cases, the district courts granted the Government's 12(b)(1) motions and dismissed the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By contrast, the district court in Duarte's case held a hearing on the Government's motion to dismiss, then issued a final judgment without an opinion. The final judgment stated that the court was converting the Government's motion into a motion for summary judgement in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Dubin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 3, 2022
  • Ramirez Garcia v. United States Citizenship
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • August 12, 2022
    ... ... decisions.”) ... [ 7 ] The Fifth Circuit's recent ... decision in Duarte v. Mayorkas , 27 F.4th 1044 (5th ... Cir. 2022), does not alter this conclusion. There, the Fifth ... Circuit considered a situation in ... ...
  • Hernandez v. Mayorkas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • June 1, 2022
    ... ...          Their ... claim that USCIS arbitrarily closed their application is ... denied ... --------- ... Notes: ... [1] 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) ... [2] Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 ... F.3d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 2012) ... [3] Duarte ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT