Xia v. Bondi

24-2304
Xia v. Bondi
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit
August Term, 2024
No. 24-2304
S UQIN XIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAMELA B ONDI , United States Attorney General; KRISTI N OEM,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; KIKA S COTT , Acting
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; C ONNIE
N OLAN, Associate Director for Service Center Operations, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; B ARBARA O WLETT, Field
Office Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Long
Island,
Defendants-Appellees.∗
On Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
ARGUED: FEBRUARY 6, 2025
D ECIDED: MAY 19, 2025
∗ The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption
as set forth above.

-- 1 of 17 --

2
Before: PARKER , B IANCO, and N ARDINI , Circuit Judges. 1
2
3
Plaintiff-Appellant Suqin Xia, a citizen of the People’s Republic 4
of China who has lived in the United States unlawfully for more than 5
thirty years, applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 6
resident, a discretionary form of relief, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The 7
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) 8
denied Xia’s application after determining that she did not warrant a 9
favorable exercise of discretion. Xia challenged the agency’s decision 10
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 11
under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative 12
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. The district court (Allyne R. Ross, 13
District Judge) determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)—which, in 14
pertinent part, bars judicial review of “any judgment” regarding an 15
application made under § 1255—applied to this action, and therefore 16
dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 17
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We 18
agree with the district court that a denial of an application for 19
adjustment of status under § 1255 is a “judgment” for purposes of 20
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) regardless of whether it is issued by an immigration 21
court or USCIS. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 22
AFFIRMED. 23
24
25
MARY B. MCGARVEY -D E PUY (Varuni 26
Nelson, Kimberly A. Francis, on the brief), 27
Assistant United States Attorneys, for Breon 28
Peace, United States Attorney for the 29
Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, 30
for Defendants-Appellees. 31

-- 2 of 17 --

3
J EAN W ANG, Wang Law Office, PLLC, 1
Flushing, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 2
3
4
WILLIAM J. N ARDINI , Circuit Judge: 5
Plaintiff-Appellant Suqin Xia, a citizen of the People’s Republic 6
of China who has lived in the United States unlawfully for more than 7
thirty years, applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 8
resident, a discretionary form of relief, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The 9
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) 10
denied Xia’s application after determining that she did not warrant a 11
favorable exercise of discretion. Xia challenged the agency’s decision 12
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 13
under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative 14
Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. The district court 15
(Allyne R. Ross, District Judge) determined that 8 U.S.C. 16
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)—which, in pertinent part, bars judicial review of 17
“any judgment” regarding an application made under § 1255— 18
applied to this action, and therefore dismissed the complaint for lack 19
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20
Procedure 12(b)(1). 21
We agree with the district court that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes 22
judicial review of Xia’s claims. Although Xia argues that this 23
provision applies only to judgments by immigration courts, the 24
Supreme Court’s reasoning in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), and 25
the overall statutory framework lead us to conclude otherwise. We 26
hold that a denial of an application for adjustment of status under 27

-- 3 of 17 --

4
§ 1255 is a “judgment” for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) regardless of 1
whether it is issued by an immigration court or USCIS. Because Xia 2
challenges such a judgment, the jurisdictional bar applies. Xia’s 3
remaining arguments are unavailing. Accordingly, the judgment of 4
the district court is AFFIRMED. 5
I. Background 6
A. Xia’s Unlawful Presence in the United States 7
Xia arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New 8
York in October 1993 without authorization to enter the United States. 9
At the time, she was several months pregnant with twin daughters, 10
and she claimed that she feared returning to China because she would 11
face persecution for violating that country’s one-child policy. She was 12
paroled into the United States pending an asylum hearing. In 13
February 1995, an immigration judge denied her asylum application 14
and ordered her removed to her native country. But that order was 15
never executed, and Xia has remained in the United States unlawfully 16
for over three decades. 17
B. Xia’s Application for Adjustment of Status 18
In October 2021, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), Xia filed a 19
Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 20
Status, as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. In a decision dated 21
March 7, 2024, USCIS denied Xia’s application, basing its decision 22
solely on discretionary grounds without making any determination 23
as to her statutory eligibility for adjustment of status. The agency 24

-- 4 of 17 --

5
identified several factors that weighed against granting the 1
application, including that Xia “blatantly disregarded” the 2
outstanding removal order and remained in the United States in 3
violation of U.S. law for nearly thirty years, and that she incredibly 4
professed ignorance of the removal order during her interview for her 5
adjustment application despite having been provided a copy of the 6
order when it was issued in 1995. App’x 66. Additional negative 7
factors included Xia’s three convictions for disorderly conduct, which 8
demonstrated “a disregard for criminal law,” and her twenty-plus 9
years of unauthorized employment. Id. at 66–67. On the positive side 10
of the ledger, the agency primarily considered Xia’s status as the 11
mother of two adult U.S. citizens, but because they were born while 12
she was already in removal proceedings, her “ties to them constitute 13
after-acquired equities and [were therefore] given less weight.” Id. at 14
68. After weighing all relevant factors, the agency decided that Xia 15
did “not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” Id. 16
C. District Court Proceedings 17
On January 19, 2024, while her adjustment application was still 18
pending, Xia commenced this action under the Mandamus Act, 19
28 U.S.C. § 1361, and Section 706(1) of the APA, seeking an order 20
directing USCIS to adjudicate the application. After USCIS denied 21
the application, Xia amended her complaint to seek judicial review of 22
that decision. She alleged that the agency violated the APA by issuing 23
a decision that was contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and 24
unsupported by the record. The defendants—Merrick Garland, then- 25
U.S. Attorney General; Alejandro Mayorkas, then-Secretary of the 26

-- 5 of 17 --

6
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ur Mendoza Jaddou, then- 1
Director of USCIS; and USCIS officers Connie Nolan and Barbara 2
Owlett 1 —moved to the dismiss the complaint for lack of subject 3
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).2 4
The district court agreed with the defendants that it lacked 5
subject matter jurisdiction over Xia’s claims. The court determined 6
that the jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which 7
precludes Article III courts from reviewing “any judgment regarding 8
the granting of relief under section . . . 1255,” foreclosed this action. 9
Under binding Second Circuit precedent, the court explained, the 10
jurisdictional bar “strips the courts of jurisdiction to review the [Board 11
of Immigration Appeals]’s weighing of discretionary factors in 12
denying an application for adjustment of status under § 1255.” Xia v. 13
Garland, No. 24-CV-395 (ARR) (SJB), 2024 WL 3925766, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 14
Aug. 23, 2024) (first citing Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135, 138 15
(2d Cir. 2006); and then citing Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465, 468 16
(2d Cir. 2006)). Applying that rule here, the court concluded that 17
because USCIS denied Xia’s application as a matter of discretion, the 18
denial constituted an unreviewable “judgment” for purposes of 19
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Pamela Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Acting
Director of USCIS Kika Scott are automatically substituted for their predecessors
as defendants.
2 The defendants also moved to dismiss any Mandamus Act claim, in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

-- 6 of 17 --

7
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ 1
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). 2
II. Discussion 3
On appeal, Xia contends that the district court erred in 4
dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She 5
argues, among other things, that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not apply here 6
because it bars judicial review only of judgments by an immigration 7
court, not of decisions by USCIS. We disagree. The district court 8
correctly determined that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review 9
of USCIS’s decision and therefore properly dismissed Xia’s claims 10
under Rule 12(b)(1). Xia’s remaining arguments are unavailing. 11
A. Standard of Review 12
A district court properly dismisses an action for lack of subject 13
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) if the court “lacks the 14
statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Cortlandt St. 15
Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.Á.R.L, 790 F.3d 411, 416–17 16
(2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff bears 17
the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that 18
subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Nouritajer v. Jaddou, 18 F.4th 85, 19
88 (2d Cir. 2021). On appeal from a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), we 20
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 21
findings for clear error. Id. 22

-- 7 of 17 --

8
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework 1
Section 1255(a) provides that “[t]he status of an alien who was 2
inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States,” otherwise 3
known as an arriving alien, “may be adjusted by the Attorney 4
General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may 5
prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 6
residence,” so long as the alien meets the statutory requirements for 7
such adjustment. Congress later extended jurisdiction over 8
applications for adjustment of status to USCIS, a component agency 9
of the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the 10
Department of Justice. See 6 U.S.C. §§ 271(b)(5), 557; Perez v. U.S. 11
Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (USCIS), 774 F.3d 960, 965 n.3 12
(11th Cir. 2014). When, as in this case, an arriving alien files an 13
adjustment application outside the context of removal proceedings, 14
USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction over the application.3 See 8 C.F.R. 15
§§ 245.2(a)(1), 1245.2(a)(1); see also Brito v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 160, 166 16
(2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that the regulations “provide USCIS with 17
jurisdiction to adjudicate adjustment of status applications for all 18
arriving aliens,” subject to a narrow exception not applicable here). 19
“In general, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal 20
courts lack jurisdiction to review judgments pertaining to certain 21
forms of immigration relief,” Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 325, 22
337 (2025), including applications for adjustment of status under 23
3 Xia stated on her adjustment application, and there is no dispute, that her
status at the time of her entry into the United States was that of an “arriving alien”
who “[w]as inspected at a port of entry and paroled.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 23-2 at 41.

-- 8 of 17 --

9
8 U.S.C. § 1255. By its terms, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of “any 1
judgment” pertaining to such relief: 2
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or 3
nonstatutory), . . . except as provided in subparagraph 4
(D), and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or 5
action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall 6
have jurisdiction to review—(i) any judgment regarding 7
the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 8
1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title . . . . 9
Section 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves judicial review in a narrow set of 10
circumstances: “Nothing in subparagraph (B) . . . shall be construed 11
as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law 12
raised upon a petition for review [from a final order of removal] filed 13
with an appropriate court of appeals.” 14
C. Whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) Applies to USCIS’s Denial of 15
Xia’s Application for Adjustment of Status 16
The principal question presented for our review is whether a 17
decision by USCIS to deny an application for adjustment of status 18
under § 1255 constitutes a “judgment” to which the jurisdictional bar 19
in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) attaches.4 The answer is yes. In reaching this 20
4 In Rahman v. Mayorkas, we acknowledged that, after the Supreme Court’s
decision in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), “there is an open question as to
whether we have jurisdiction to review any aspect of a USCIS decision denying
discretionary relief, such as a status adjustment, outside of a removal proceeding.”
No. 22-904-CV, 2023 WL 2397027, at *1 n.2 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2023) (summary order).

-- 9 of 17 --

10
conclusion, we join every other circuit that has addressed this 1
question.5 2
1. The Plain Text of the Statute 3
To ascertain the scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), “we start where we 4
always do: with the text of the statute.” Van Buren v. United States, 5
593 U.S. 374, 381 (2021). The plain text of this provision compels our 6
conclusion that it encompasses decisions by USCIS to deny or grant 7
relief under § 1255. The preamble to this subsection provides that the 8
jurisdictional bar applies “regardless of whether the judgment, 9
decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. 10
We declined to address that question then. Today, we answer the narrower
question set forth here.
5 See Momin v. Jaddou, 113 F.4th 552, 558 (5th Cir. 2024) (holding that
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applied to USCIS’s denial of an adjustment application); Viana
Guedes v. Mayorkas, 123 F.4th 68, 71 (1st Cir. 2024) (“The district court plainly
lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to hear appellants’ claims
challenging USCIS’ denial of their adjustment of status applications.”); Nakka v.
U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 111 F.4th 995, 1008 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[B]ecause of
the ‘regardless’ clause, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) must be interpreted as also encompassing
judgments regarding the granting of discretionary relief that are made by USCIS
and DHS outside removal proceedings.”); Hatchet v. Andrade, 106 F.4th 574, 582
(6th Cir. 2024) (holding that pursuant to § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), “the district court lacked
jurisdiction to review the factual findings of USCIS”); Abuzeid v. Mayorkas, 62 F.4th
578, 584 (D.C. Cir. 2023); Britkovyy v. Mayorkas, 60 F.4th 1024, 1028–30 (7th Cir.
2023) (Ҥ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) operates to eliminate judicial review of the denial of an
adjustment-of-status application by USCIS.”); Lee v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 592 F.3d 612, 619 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Commandant v. Dist. Dir., Miami
Dist. (S24), USCIS, No. 21-10372, 2024 WL 3565390, at *1–2 (11th Cir. July 29, 2024)
(unpublished opinion) (holding that “under Patel, section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) stripped
the district court of jurisdiction to review” the plaintiffs’ challenge to USCIS’s
denials of their applications for adjustment of status under § 1255).

-- 10 of 17 --

11
§ 1252(a)(2)(B). As the Supreme Court noted in Patel, “USCIS 1
[is assigned] authority over applications for adjustment of status 2
made outside of removal proceedings.” 596 U.S. at 333 (citing 8 C.F.R. 3
§ 245.2(a)(1)). In other words, USCIS is the only entity that can issue 4
an authoritative decision on adjustment applications outside the 5
removal context, and it is therefore the only entity whose decisions on 6
those applications could fall within the scope of the “regardless” 7
clause of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Thus, Congress’s clear directive that no 8
federal court may review a denial of an adjustment application under 9
§ 1255, even if it occurs outside removal proceedings, necessarily 10
applies to decisions by USCIS. See Lee, 592 F.3d at 619 (“[T]he 11
language ‘regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is 12
made in removal proceedings’ makes clear that the jurisdictional 13
limitations imposed by § 1252(a)(2)(B) also apply to review of agency 14
decisions made outside of the removal context.”); Abuzeid, 62 F.4th at 15
584 (same); see also Momin, 113 F.4th at 558 (noting that “every court 16
of appeals to consider the question has held that the jurisdictional bar 17
applies outside the removal context—including to USCIS denials of 18
adjustment of status”). 19
Xia’s reading of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is irreconcilable with the 20
statutory text and would nullify part of Congress’s directive. As Xia 21
notes, “[i]t is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a 22
statute ought . . . to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no 23
clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.” 24
Appellant’s Br. 20 (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 25
(2001)). But it is Xia’s interpretation of the statute—not the district 26

-- 11 of 17 --

12
court’s—that would violate this principle. See Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. 1
452, 463 n.8 (2016) (rejecting appellant’s reading of a statute because 2
it “conflict[ed] with our ordinary assumption that Congress, when 3
drafting a statute, gives each provision independent meaning”). If 4
only USCIS can decide an adjustment application outside the removal 5
context and its decision does not constitute a “judgment” for 6
purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the “regardless” clause would be 7
meaningless, at least with respect to the enumeration of § 1255 relief. 8
See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936) (“These words cannot 9
be meaningless, else they would not have been used.”). 10
2. Patel v. Garland 11
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Patel confirms our 12
conclusion. In that case, which concerned an adjustment of status 13
application made under § 1255(i) by an alien in removal proceedings, 14
the Court considered whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) forecloses judicial 15
review of “factual findings that underlie a denial of relief,” and held 16
that it does. Patel, 596 U.S. at 331, 333–34. 17
The Court explained that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) has an expansive 18
reach. The Court agreed with the starting premise that “‘judgment’ 19
means any authoritative decision.” Id. at 337–38. Consistent with this 20
“broad definition,” § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “does not restrict itself to certain 21
kinds of decisions. Rather, it prohibits review of any judgment 22
regarding the granting of relief under § 1255 and the other enumerated 23
provisions.” Id. The modifier “any,” the Court elaborated, “means 24
that the provision applies to judgments of whatever kind under 25

-- 12 of 17 --

13
§ 1255, not just discretionary judgments or the last-in-time 1
judgment.” Id. at 338 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Similarly, 2
the use of ‘regarding’ ‘in a legal context generally has a broadening 3
effect, ensuring that the scope of a provision covers not only its subject 4
but also matters relating to that subject.’” Id. at 338–39 (emphasis 5
added) (quoting Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 584 U. S. 709, 6
717 (2018)). In short, the Court agreed that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s 7
jurisdictional bar “encompasses any and all decisions relating to the 8
granting or denying of discretionary relief,” including factual 9
findings. Id. at 337 (internal quotation marks omitted). 10
Patel severely undermines Xia’s argument that the term 11
“judgment” for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) includes only the 12
decisions of an immigration court, not the decisions of USCIS. The 13
Court concluded that the term reaches even an immigration judge’s 14
credibility determination, a quintessential factual finding. See id. at 15
341 (observing that “[u]sing the word ‘judgment’ to describe . . . [a] 16
credibility determination is perfectly natural” and emphasizing that 17
the jurisdictional bar applies to “any judgment”). It follows that a 18
decision by USCIS to deny an adjustment application under § 1255 19
fits within this broad definition. Indeed, the Court acknowledged 20
that its interpretation of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) could have the 21
“consequence of precluding all review of USCIS denials of 22
discretionary relief” because “[t]hose decisions are made outside of 23
the removal context, and subparagraph (D) preserves review of legal 24
and constitutional questions only when raised in a petition for review 25
of a final order of removal.” Id. at 345. 26

-- 13 of 17 --

14
While it declined to decide the reviewability of USCIS 1
decisions, the Court suggested that foreclosing review of those 2
decisions might not be an “unintended” consequence of its opinion, 3
as Patel and the government framed it, but rather “consistent with 4
Congress’ choice to reduce procedural protections in the context of 5
discretionary relief.” Id. at 345–46. That choice followed INS v. St. 6
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), where the Court explained that reading 7
§ 1252, as it existed then, to bar review of all legal questions in removal 8
cases could raise constitutional concerns. Id. at 300. Through the 9
post-St. Cyr amendments to § 1252, the Court observed, Congress 10
“preserved review of legal and constitutional questions made within 11
removal proceedings” and simultaneously “extended the 12
jurisdictional bar to judgments made outside of removal 13
proceedings.” Patel, 596 U.S. at 345–46. Put differently, “[t]o the 14
extent Congress decided to permit judicial review of a constitutional 15
or legal issue bearing upon the denial of adjustment of status, it 16
intended for the issue to be raised to the court of appeals during 17
removal proceedings.” Id. at 346 (quoting Lee, 592 F.3d at 620). Thus, 18
the Court suggested, “it is possible that Congress did, in fact, intend 19
to close th[e] door” to judicial review of USCIS decisions. Id. at 345. 20
The Court went on to emphasize that it would not disregard 21
the text of § 1252(a)(1)(B)(i) to accommodate the parties’ concern that 22
giving full effect to the plain meaning of the provision could insulate 23
USCIS decisions from judicial review. Although the parties urged it 24
“to avoid the risk of this result,” the Court asserted that “it would be 25
difficult to maintain that this consequence conflicts with the statutory 26

-- 14 of 17 --

15
structure.” Id. at 346. To the contrary, this result—whatever its merits 1
as a matter of policy—comports with “the best interpretation of the 2
statutory text.” Id. And the statutory text, the Court stressed, dictates 3
the meaning of the provision. See id. (citing Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 4
593 U.S. 155, 171 (2021), which observed that “no amount of 5
policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command”). 6
Nothing in the Court’s reasoning supports Xia’s argument that 7
only a decision by an immigration court can constitute a judgment to 8
which the jurisdictional bar attaches. Indeed, if Xia were correct, Patel 9
could have easily dispatched the parties’ concern that the Court’s 10
interpretation of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) would foreclose judicial review of 11
USCIS decisions by simply explaining that the provision does not 12
apply to those decisions at all. Instead, the Court recognized the 13
possibility that its holding could bar judicial review of those 14
decisions, and then dismissed the parties’ concern on the ground that 15
this result would be “consistent with Congress’ choice to reduce 16
procedural protections in the context of discretionary relief.” Id. at 17
346. 18
In sum, the logic of Patel leads ineluctably to the conclusion that 19
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of a USCIS denial of an application for 20
adjustment of status. 21
D. Xia’s Remaining Arguments 22
Xia raises two additional arguments in an attempt to 23
circumvent § 1252(a)(2)(b)(i)’s jurisdictional bar. First, she argues that 24
USCIS’s denial was not discretionary, and therefore does not fall 25

-- 15 of 17 --

16
within this provision, because it was “based on statutory grounds that 1
have merely been couched in discretionary language.” Appellant’s 2
Br. 21–22. Even if we agreed that the agency’s decision was not an 3
exercise of discretion (though we agree with the district court that it 4
was), this argument would nonetheless be unavailing. The Supreme 5
Court in Patel explained that the jurisdictional bar “applies to 6
judgments of whatever kind under § 1255, not just discretionary 7
judgments or the last-in-time judgment.” 596 U.S. at 338 (emphasis 8
added) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, the Court rejected 9
the government’s argument that the term “judgment” for purposes of 10
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “refers exclusively to a ‘discretionary’ decision,” 11
explaining that “[a] ‘judgment’ does not necessarily involve 12
discretion, nor does context indicate that only discretionary 13
judgments are covered by” the jurisdictional bar. Id. at 340–43. 14
Therefore, USCIS’s denial is unreviewable regardless of whether it 15
rested on discretionary factors, a determination that Xia is statutorily 16
ineligible for adjustment of status, or both. 17
Xia’s second argument fares no better. She contends that the 18
district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) 19
because her claims raised several questions of law. Even if we agreed 20
that Xia has raised legitimate questions of law (though we agree with 21
the district court that she has not), this argument, too, would be 22
unavailing. Section 1252(a)(2)(D) permits judicial review of 23
constitutional claims or questions of law only by an “appropriate 24
court of appeals,” and only “upon a petition for review” from a final 25
order of removal. Xia brought this case in a district court, and she 26

-- 16 of 17 --

17
was not petitioning for review of a final order of removal. See Hassan 1
v. Chertoff, 543 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that 2
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) was inapplicable because the plaintiff’s “challenge to 3
the denial of adjustment was not raised upon a petition for review 4
filed with th[e] court [of appeals]” but instead “on direct appeal from 5
the district court”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional savings clause in 6
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) provides no basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this 7
case. 8
III. Conclusion 9
In summary, we hold: 10
1. A denial of an application for adjustment of status under 11
8 U.S.C. § 1255 is a “judgment” for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) 12
regardless of whether it is issued by an immigration court or USCIS. 13
2. The district court committed no error in (a) concluding that 14
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of Xia’s challenge to 15
USCIS’s denial of her application for adjustment of status under 16
§ 1255, and therefore (b) dismissing Xia’s complaint for lack of subject 17
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18
12(b)(1). 19
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s 20
judgment. 21

-- 17 of 17 --