Krishna Kishore Geda; Chaya Durga Sruthi Keerthi Nunna v. Director United States Citizenship

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 23-2195
__________
KRISHNA KISHORE GEDA; CHAYA DURGA
SRUTHI KEERTHI NUNNA,
Appellants
v.
DIRECTOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IM-
MIGRATION SERVICES;
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRA-
TION SERVICES
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 2:22-cv-4764)
District Judge: Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo
__________
Argued April 11, 2024
Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and MCKEE, Circuit
Judges
(Filed: January 23, 2025)
Brad Banias [ARGUED]
BANIAS LAW, LLC
602 Rutledge Avenue
Charleston, SC 29403
Counsel for Appellants
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
William C. Peachey, Director, District Court Section

-- 1 of 18 --

2
Aaron Goldsmith, Senior Litigation Counsel
Jordan K. Hummel, Trial Attorney [ARGUED]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
DISTRICT COURT SECTION
P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Counsel for Appellees
Hope Lu
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street
Room 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Appellees
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Krishna Kishore Geda and Chaya Durga Sruthi
Keerthi Nunna (collectively, the “Gedas”) are married Indian
nationals lawfully residing in the United States on employ-
ment-based nonimmigrant visas.1 They have filed and await
approval of their I-485 “green card” applications seeking an
adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. After wait-
ing in line for almost eight years, the Gedas thought they
reached the front and filed their applications—only to be told
two years later that their applications were put on hold because
1 Nonimmigrant visas authorize foreign nationals to enter
or remain in the United States on a temporary basis, while im-
migrant visas are issued to foreign nationals intending to per-
manently reside in the United States.

-- 2 of 18 --

3
the required immigrant visa was not available. Frustrated by
the delay, they sued the United States Citizenship and Immi-
gration Services and its Director in her official capacity
(“USCIS”) bringing claims for unlawful withholding and un-
reasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. § 551, et seq. (“APA”). The Gedas asked the District
Court to declare the Government’s policy postponing adjudi-
cation of their green card applications (the “Adjudication Hold
Policy”) unlawful, enjoin the Government from applying the
Adjudication Hold Policy to them and enter an order compel-
ling adjudication. The District Court dismissed the claims for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the Adjudication
Hold Policy is the kind of discretionary decision that Congress
has shielded from judicial review under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), we will affirm the District Court’s order.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Adjustment of Status Under the INA
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified as 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537, governs how noncitizens obtain visas2
to enter and work in the United States. Through the INA, Con-
gress also granted the Attorney General the discretion to adjust
the status of certain noncitizens3 to lawful permanent resident
status. This discretionary authority has been delegated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and his or her delegate at
USCIS. See 6 U.S.C. § 271(b)(5); see also id. §§ 455(c), 557.
As relevant here, Section 1255(a) of the INA provides:
The status of an alien who was in-
spected and admitted or paroled
into the United States or the status
2 A visa is a documented authorization issued by the De-
partment of State (“DOS”) to noncitizens seeking to enter the
United States.
3 The INA uses the term “alien,” which it defines as “any
person not a citizen or national of the United States.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(3). We use the term “noncitizen” to mean any per-
son as defined in § 1101(a)(3).

-- 3 of 18 --

4
of any other alien having an ap-
proved petition for classification
as a VAWA self-petitioner may be
adjusted by the Attorney General,
in his discretion and under such
regulations as he may prescribe, to
that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence if (1) the
alien makes an application for such
adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible
to receive an immigrant visa and is
admissible to the United States for
permanent residence, and (3) an
immigrant visa is immediately
available to him at the time his ap-
plication is filed.
8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (emphasis added). Under one such regula-
tion “prescribe[d]” by the Government, a green card applica-
tion “shall not be approved until an immigrant visa number4
has been allocated by the Department of State.” 8 C.F.R. §
245.2(a)(5)(ii). The Government uses § 245.2(a)(5)(ii)—the
visa availability requirement—to ensure it complies with the
INA’s caps that limit the number of immigrant preference visas
that can be allocated during each fiscal year based on visa type
and country of origin. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, 1153.
Upon approval of a green card application, USCIS records
the noncitizen’s lawful admission for permanent residence “as
of the [approval] date,” and the DOS “reduce[s] by one the
number of the preference [immigrant] visas authorized to be
issued under sections 1152 and 1153 . . . for the fiscal year then
current.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(b). In effect, § 1255(b) tasks DOS
with tracking immigrant visa availability as the fiscal year pro-
gresses and 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) is the regulation that pre-
vents adjudication of a green card application if an immigrant
visa cannot be allocated. Under this system, an immigrant visa
4 A visa number is a budgetary device employed by the
DOS to avoid exceeding the worldwide and per-country limits
on preference immigrant visas established by Congress. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1151–52.

-- 4 of 18 --

5
must be available both when the green card application is filed
(per § 1255(a)) and when it is approved (per § 245.2(a)(5)(ii)).
B. Visa Availability and the Adjudication Hold Pol-
icy
A noncitizen seeking an immigrant preference visa—the
ones subject to the statutory caps—must be sponsored by a rel-
ative or employer. A noncitizen seeking lawful permanent sta-
tus through employer sponsorship must receive an employ-
ment-based preference visa (“EB visa”). For EB visas, a spon-
soring employer files an immigrant visa petition on the noncit-
izen’s behalf. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a). An approved immi-
grant petition is required for a green card. See id. §
245.2(a)(2)(i)(B); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Neither spon-
sorship nor an approved immigrant petition guarantees alloca-
tion of an EB visa. The overall yearly cap for EB visas is
140,000 (plus rollover family-sponsorship visas from the year
before), see 8 U.S.C. § 1151(d), and there are percentage caps
on that broader limit based on country of origin and preference
category, 5 see id. §§ 1152, 1153.
The Department of State allocates EB visas on a “first-
come, first-served” basis. Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573
U.S. 41, 48 (2014) (plurality opinion). Petitions for EB visas
receive a “priority date” marking a noncitizen’s spot in line.
For EB-2 and EB-3 visas, the priority date is usually the date
that the Department of Labor accepts for filing the sponsoring
5 The number of EB visas available each fiscal year is di-
vided among five preference categories based on skill level and
educational background. See U.S. Dep’t of State – Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Employment-Based Immigrant Visas,
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immi-
grate/employment-based-immigrant-visas.html#overview
[https://perma.cc/ZLC8-M9VE]. EB-2 visas require advanced
degrees or exceptional abilities in sciences, arts, or business.
Id. EB-3 visas are for professionals whose jobs require at least
an undergraduate (or its foreign equivalent) degree, skilled
workers and unskilled worders. Id. Geda meets the require-
ments for both an EB-2 visa and an EB-3 visa.

-- 5 of 18 --

6
employer’s application for labor certification.6 EB visas
chargeable to any given country and preference category com-
bination must be allocated in the order of their priority dates.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(e)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.51(b).
For countries like India that have more petitions than avail-
able visas, the Department of State projects a cutoff date for
each preference category and publishes its projections in a
monthly Visa Bulletin. Once an applicant’s priority date be-
comes “current”—that is, it falls before the published cutoff
date—a visa is considered “immediately available,” and the ap-
plicant may file a green card application. See 8 U.S.C. §
1255(a). The cutoff date, or “Final Action Date,” generally
advances over time. But when actual demand outpaces projec-
tions, the Department of State revises the Final Action Date to
an earlier date under a practice known as “retrogression.”7
When an applicant files an application, but retrogression ren-
ders his or her priority date no longer current before adjudica-
tion, USCIS holds the application in abeyance per the Adjudi-
cation Hold Policy. The applicant retains his or her spot in
line—retrogression does not impact an applicant’s priority
date. But retrogression does delay adjudication for applicants
that thought they had reached the front.
C. The Gedas
Mr. Geda’s employer filed for a permanent labor certifica-
tion on December 18, 2012, setting that date as the Gedas’ pri-
ority date. That same day, the Department of Labor issued the
6 To file an EB visa petition, most sponsoring employers
must first obtain certification from the Department of Labor
that (1) insufficient qualified U.S. workers are available and
(2) the noncitizen’s employment will not negatively affect
wages and working conditions. See 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(5)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(a)(2), (c); see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(3)(C). For EB visas that do not require a labor cer-
tification, the priority date is the date the immigrant petition is
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d).
7 See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv, Visa Retro-
gression, https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-pro-
cesses-and-procedures/visa-availability-priority-dates/visa-
retrogression [https://perma.cc/HYK8-HUDX].

-- 6 of 18 --

7
labor certification, and Mr. Geda’s employer filed an immi-
grant visa petition with USCIS. Mr. Geda’s petition was later
approved as an EB-2 visa petition for foreign nationals with
advanced degrees or exceptional ability. For almost eight
years, Mr. Geda and Mrs. Nunna waited in line as USCIS
worked through the backlog of approved petitions.
In October 2020, the Gedas—still waiting in line for an EB-
2 visa—realized their priority date would be current for an EB-
3 visa, which Mr. Geda also qualified for. Mr. Geda’s em-
ployer then concurrently filed a petition for an EB-3 visa along
with green card applications for Mr. Geda and Mrs. Nunna.
USCIS subsequently approved Mr. Geda’s petition for an EB-
3 visa. While the green card applications were pending, the
wait time for EB-2 visas once again became shorter than the
EB-3 wait time. Under USCIS policy,8 Mr. Geda requested a
“transfer of underlying basis” for the pending green card appli-
cations to his previously approved EB-2 petition. App. 2.
According to the September 2022 Visa Bulletin, the Final
Action date for EB-2 applicants was December 1, 2014—mak-
ing the Gedas’ priority date “current” and rendering them eli-
gible to receive EB-2 visas and have their green card applica-
tions adjudicated. But two setbacks for the Gedas quickly fol-
lowed. First, on September 6, 2022, DOS notified USCIS that
there were no available EB-2 visas for the rest of the 2022 fis-
cal year. Still, the Gedas anticipated visa availability (and the
subsequent adjudication of their green card applications) at the
beginning of the 2023 fiscal year the following month. But
then the October Visa Bulletin retrogressed the Final Action
date for EB-2 applicants by more than two years to April 1,
2012, rendering the Gedas’ priority date no longer “current.”
Without a “current” priority date, the DOS could not allocate
an EB-2 visa to Mr. Geda. And so pursuant to the Adjudication
Hold Policy, the USCIS placed the Gedas’ pending green card
applications on hold.
8 USCIS policy allows foreign nationals with multiple ap-
proved EB visa petitions based on different preference catego-
ries to choose which preference category to use for their pend-
ing green card applications.

-- 7 of 18 --

8
The Gedas claim that the last time USCIS applied this pol-
icy, similarly situated applicants waited eight to nine years for
final adjudication. Understandably frustrated, the Gedas sued
to compel USCIS to promptly adjudicate their green card ap-
plications and allocate EB visas, arguing that the Adjudication
Hold Policy violates congressional intent. In their amended
complaint, the Gedas asserted two unlawful withholding
claims and one unreasonable delay claim under the APA. Sec-
tion 706(1) of the APA allows courts to compel agency action
if it is “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5
U.S.C. § 706(1). The Gedas sought an order (1) invalidating
the Adjudication Hold Policy; (2) enjoining USCIS from en-
forcing the policy; and (3) compelling adjudication of their ap-
plications within thirty days. At its core, the Gedas’ contention
is that the Adjudication Hold Policy is unlawful because it con-
stitutes USCIS’s continued enforcement of a repealed version
of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) that required an immigrant visa to be
“immediately available . . . at the time [an] application is ap-
proved.” Joint Resolution of July 14, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-
648, § 10, 74 Stat. 504, 505 (emphasis added). In 1976, Con-
gress amended §1255(a) to remove that requirement and, in-
stead, require a visa be “immediately available . . . at the time
[an] application is filed.” Immigration and Nationality Act
Amendments of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-571 § 6, 90 Stat. 2703,
2706 (emphasis added). USCIS moved to dismiss, arguing the
District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The District
Court agreed and dismissed the claims.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and review the district court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Manivannan v. U.S. Dep’t of
Energy, 42 F.4th 163, 169 (3d Cir. 2022). “A jurisdictional
challenge may be facial (in that it attacks the complaint without
disputing its allegations) or factual (by presenting competing
facts undermining federal jurisdiction).” Id. (citing Davis v.
Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016)). Because this
challenge “is facial, we accept the complaint’s well pled alle-
gations as true” and review them “in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff[s].” Id. (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.
2000)).

-- 8 of 18 --

9
III. JURISDICTION
We first address the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, as
the Supreme Court has instructed that “[w]ithout jurisdiction
the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Sinochem Int’l
Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007)
(quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94
(1998)). This Court has an “independent obligation to deter-
mine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v.
Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
The District Court explained the Gedas’ claims “lack[ed]
subject matter jurisdiction because the APA does not confer
jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) upon matters within the
discretion of USCIS and DOS at issue here.” App. 4. “Alt-
hough it waives sovereign immunity, see 5 U.S.C. § 702, and
provides several causes of action, see, e.g., id. § 706, the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act includes no independent grant of
subject-matter jurisdiction[.]” Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v.
Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2 F.4th 121, 132 (3d
Cir. 2021) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107
(1977)). Thus, the issue under the APA goes not to jurisdiction
but to the sufficiency of the pleadings. We will affirm the Dis-
trict Court’s dismissal, but we need not reach whether the
Gedas stated a claim that satisfies the requirements of § 706(1)
in doing so. Rather we hold as a threshold matter that the INA
precludes § 1331 federal question jurisdiction here. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); see also § 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)
(barring review under the APA where “statutes preclude judi-
cial review”).
A. Preclusion of Review Under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
“District courts have jurisdiction to review agency action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ‘subject only to preclusion-of-review
statutes created or retained by Congress.’” Bakran v. Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 894 F.3d 557, 562 (3d Cir. 2018)
(quoting Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen., 666 F.3d 118, 126 (3d Cir.
2012)). One such preclusion-of-review provision in the INA
states:
Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law (statutory or

-- 9 of 18 --

10
nonstatutory), including section
2241 of Title 28, or any other ha-
beas corpus provision, and sec-
tions 1361 and 1651 of such title,
and except as provided in subpara-
graph (D), and regardless of
whether the judgment, decision, or
action is made in removal proceed-
ings, no court shall have jurisdic-
tion to review—
(i) any judgment regarding
the granting of relief under section
1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or
1255 of this title, or
(ii) any other decision or ac-
tion of the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security
the authority for which is specified
under this subchapter to be in the
discretion of the Attorney General
or the Secretary of Homeland Se-
curity, other than the granting of
relief under section 1158(a) of this
title.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The phrase “under
this subchapter” refers to Subchapter II in Chapter 12 of Title
8 of the United States Code, which includes 8 U.S.C. § 1255,
the statute at issue here. Our precedent instructs that this juris-
dictional bar “applies not to all decisions the [Secretary] is en-
titled to make, but to a narrower category of decisions [or ac-
tions] where Congress has taken the additional step to specify
that the sole authority for the action is in the [Secretary]’s dis-
cretion.” Bakran, 894 F.3d at 562 (quoting Alaka v. Att’y Gen.,
456 F.3d 88, 95 (3d Cir. 2006)); see also Soltane v. U.S. Dep’t
of Just., 381 F.3d 143, 146 (3d Cir. 2004) (“The key to §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) lies in its requirement that the discretion giv-
ing rise to the jurisdictional bar must be ‘specified’ by stat-
ute.”).

-- 10 of 18 --

11
B. Judicial Review of the Adjudication Hold Policy
The Gedas challenge the USCIS’s reliance on the Adjudi-
cation Hold Policy to delay a decision on their applications.
But that decision—whether and how to adjust their status—is
explicitly committed to the Secretary’s discretion, which it has
delegated to USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (“The status of an
alien . . . may be adjusted by the [Secretary], in his discretion
and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence[.]”) (emphasis
added). Since the Secretary “may” adjust an applicant’s status
“in his discretion” and “under such regulations as he may pre-
scribe,” id. (emphasis added), § 1255(a) vests the Secretary
and his or her delegate at USCIS “with considerable leeway in
establishing the process” by which an adjustment of status is
adjudicated. Babaria v. Blinken, 87 F.4th 963, 977 (9th Cir.
2023), cert. denied sub nom. Babaria v. Jaddou, No. 23-1268,
2024 WL 4426634 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2024); see also Thigulla v.
Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770, 775 (8th Cir. 2024) (“Section 1255(a)’s
text establishes the [Secretary’s] ‘discretion’ both to adjust ap-
plicants’ statuses, even after the applicants meet the statutory
requirements, and to enact ‘such regulations as he may pre-
scribe’ to administer this process.”). Except for § 1255’s three
prerequisites, “Congress expressly manifested its intent that
the [Secretary] regulate the process by which status will be ad-
justed[.]” Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 618 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Congress thus “specified,” as required by §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), that actions taken to regulate the application
and adjudication process are within the Secretary’s discretion
and disputes over this exercise of power fall outside the sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. See Zhao v. Gonza-
les, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The statutory language
[of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)] is uncharacteristically pellucid on this
score; it does not allude generally to ‘discretionary authority’
or to ‘discretionary authority exercised under this statute,’ but
specifically to ‘authority for which is specified under this sub-
chapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.’”).
Section 1255(a) is a classic grant of discretion because it pro-
vides the Secretary discretion over not only the final decision
but the entire process for reaching that decision. Cf. Bouarfa
v. Mayorkas, No. 23-583, 2024 WL 5048700, at *5 (U.S. Dec.

-- 11 of 18 --

12
10, 2024) (describing the discretion granted through 8 U.S.C.
§ 1155 as “quintessential” because the Secretary can exercise
it at any time and for any reason).
The Gedas’ challenge to the Adjudication Hold Policy is an
issue of first impression for this Court. That said, we have ad-
dressed the reviewability of procedures set forth to exercise
statutorily granted discretion. In Bakran, we considered an
INA provision barring citizens convicted of a “specified of-
fense against a minor” from filing a visa petition on behalf of
a relative “unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the
Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that
the citizen poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a
petition . . . is filed.” 894 F.3d at 560 (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I)). The appellant in Bakran did not chal-
lenge the “no risk” determination itself—which is clearly un-
reviewable—but the two USCIS memos that set forth the pro-
cess for making that determination, which he argued violated
the APA. Id. at 561. In reversing the district court, we held
that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded subject-matter jurisdiction
over the appellant’s APA claims that USCIS exceeded its stat-
utory authority. Id. at 563. Because the exercise of discretion
was “inextricably intertwined” with the process set out by the
challenged memos, we were “precluded from reviewing both
the decision and the process for reaching it.” Id. (emphasis
added).
The jurisdictional bar is even more straightforward here.
We are presented with a discretion-granting statute that explic-
itly provides the Secretary the discretion to “prescribe” the reg-
ulations that guide its exercise of the discretionary authority. 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review both the
decision to put the Gedas’ applications on hold and the “inex-
tricably intertwined” process “prescribed” by the Secretary for
reaching that decision.9
9 The Gedas contend their claims present “a pure question
of statutory interpretation.” Appellants’ Br. at 11. While 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves judicial review of “constitu-
tional claims or questions of law[,]” those issues must be
“raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate
court of appeals in accordance with this section.” 8 U.S.C. §

-- 12 of 18 --

13
Two of our sister circuits have squarely addressed this
question in a precedential opinion and reached the same con-
clusion. In Thigulla, the appellants sued to compel USCIS to
adjudicate their green card applications, arguing that the deci-
sion to delay adjudication violated congressional intent. 94
F.4th at 773. The Eighth Circuit considered the subject-matter
jurisdiction issue sua sponte. Id. at 773–74. In holding that it
lacked jurisdiction, the Thigulla court identified “[t]he text of
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1255(a)” as providing the requisite
“evidence that Congress intended to preclude judicial review
of the Attorney General's discretionary decisions about the sta-
tus adjustment process under § 1255(a), like the Adjudication
Hold Policy.” Id. at 776. Addressing the same legislative his-
tory argument the Gedas advance here—that the Adjudication
Hold Policy is unlawful because Congress previously required
visa availability at approval and later amended § 1255(a) to re-
move that requirement—the Eighth Circuit noted that “while
Congress did not mandate the Adjudication Hold Policy (even
though it did in the past), under the clear text of § 1255(a),
1252(a)(2)(D). Even if the Gedas raised a colorable question
of law, they failed to do so on a petition for review before this
Court—placing these claims outside of Congress’s carveout to
this jurisdictional bar. See Jilin Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Chertoff,
447 F.3d 196, 206 n.16 (3d Cir. 2006).
To be clear, we do not reach the issue of whether Gedas’
substantive argument—that the Government’s reading of §
1255 as requiring visa availability for adjudication violates
congressional intent—is reviewable, and if so, how the Gedas
could seek review. But Congress can expressly limit and chan-
nel judicial review, and the Supreme Court has found that a
similar statutory scheme “preserved a ‘latent right to judicial
review.’” Nakka v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 111
F.4th 995, 1014 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Reno v. Catholic Soc.
Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 54 (1993)). This “is the system Con-
gress has created and ‘we cannot legislate to correct it.’” Jilin
Pharm. USA, Inc., 447 F.3d at 205 n.11 (quoting NVE Inc. v.
Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 436 F.3d 182, 194 (3d Cir.
2006)); see also Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 346 (2022)
(“[I]t would be difficult to maintain that this consequence con-
flicts with the statutory structure [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)][.]”).

-- 13 of 18 --

14
Congress left such a policy to the discretion of the [Secretary].”
Id. at 777.
The Fifth Circuit followed suit in Cheejati v. Blinken, ex-
plaining:
Section 1255(a) expressly leaves
not only the ultimate decision to
adjust an applicant's immigration
status but also actions taken in the
course of the decision-making pro-
cess—including the pace at which
that process is undertaken—to the
discretion of the Attorney General:
applications for adjustment of sta-
tus are adjudicated “in [the Attor-
ney General's] discretion and un-
der such regulations as he may pre-
scribe.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). And
we recently held, albeit in an un-
published case, that the pace of
USCIS’s adjudication is left to its
discretion, with “no clear man-
date” requiring USCIS to act
within a certain timeframe. Li v.
Jaddou, No. 22-50756, 2023 WL
3431237, at *1 (5th Cir. May 12,
2023). Accordingly, the discrete
acts undertaken to render an ad-
justment decision and the timing of
those acts are determined by the
Attorney General in his discretion,
and that discretionary action can-
not be reviewed by federal courts.
8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),
1255.
106 F.4th 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2024).
Faced with the same issue, two other sister circuits rejected
the APA claims without addressing the threshold issue of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit proceeded directly to
the merits “assum[ing] there [were] no statutory bars to the ex-
ercise of jurisdiction” because it “resolve[d] the merits in the

-- 14 of 18 --

15
defendants’ favor.” Gupta v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475, 482 (1st
Cir. 2024). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court’s denial of injunctive relief without addressing any juris-
dictional defects. See Babaria, 87 F.4th at 972. Because both
our Court and the District Court lack subject-matter jurisdic-
tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), we “must merely note
the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit.” Larsen v. Sen-
ate, 152 F.3d 240, 245 (3d Cir. 1998).
C. The Gedas’ Counterarguments
The Gedas offer four arguments against this jurisdictional
bar, none of which persuade us against our holding. First, they
suggest that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply because Section
1252 is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” Re-
lying on titles can be precarious. “A title is, almost necessarily,
an abridgment,” and so “matters in the text . . . are frequently
unreflected in the headings.” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S.
528, 559 (2015) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (quoting Brotherhood
of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519,
528 (1947)). That is why “[f]or interpretive purposes, [titles]
are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word
or phrase. They are but tools available for resolution of doubt.
But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain.”
Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen, 331 U.S. at 529. Here, the
plain text refutes the title—§ 1252(a)(2)(B) states federal ques-
tion jurisdiction is lacking “regardless of whether the judg-
ment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.” §
1252(a)(2)(B).
Statutory history confirms this reading. As originally en-
acted, § 1252(a)(2)(B) provided that “[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to re-
view” any judgment, action or decision listed in subsections (i)
and (ii). See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-
sponsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–
546, 3009–607; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (2004). From 1996
to 2005, there was some disagreement among federal courts as
to whether § 1252(a)(2)(B) applied outside the context of re-
moval proceedings. Relying on the section’s title, some courts
took the narrower view. See ANA Int’l Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d
886, 891 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting the split in authority and
listing cases). In response, Congress amended § 1252(a)(2)(B)

-- 15 of 18 --

16
in the REAL ID Act of 2005, adding the language “regardless
of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in re-
moval proceedings.” Pub. L. No. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, 305.
It seems clear that Congress added that clause to confirm
that, despite the section’s title, § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdiction
limitation applies to challenges arising outside the context of
removal proceedings. See Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137, 1142 n.13 (11th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam); see also Michael J. Garcia et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv.,
RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions of
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005 13–14 (May 9, 2005). The
Supreme Court suggested the same in Patel. 596 U.S. at 346
(“[F]oreclosing judicial review unless and until removal pro-
ceedings are initiated would be consistent with Congress’
choice to reduce procedural protections in the context of dis-
cretionary relief.”).
Second, the Gedas argue that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not
apply to adjustment of status applications because the prior
subsection, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), mentions “judgment[s] regard-
ing the granting of relief under . . . [§] 1255[.]” Because sub-
section (i) refers to § 1255, the Gedas contend that a finding
that subsection (ii) applies to adjustment of status applications
violates the canon of statutory interpretation that the specific
governs the general. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v.
Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012). This argument
is misplaced. It ignores the specific inclusion of decisions un-
der § 1255 in §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which covers “any other de-
cision or action . . . the authority for which is specified under
this subchapter.” See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 239 n.3
(2010) (“‘[T]his subchapter’ refers to Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub-
chapter II, of the United States Code, codified at 8 U.S.C. §§
1151–1381 and titled ‘Immigration.’”). This reading is rein-
forced by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s explicit exclusion of decisions
involving the “granting of relief under section 1158(a).” If
Congress intended an exception to decisions or actions under §
1255, it would have included one in the text of §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Third, the Gedas point to the presumption in favor of judi-
cial review of “agency action” under Kucana. 558 U.S. at 251.
The Gedas are correct that we should only read a statute to limit

-- 16 of 18 --

17
jurisdiction if there is “clear and convincing evidence” of con-
gressional intent. Id. at 252 (quoting Reno v. Catholic Soc.
Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 64 (1993)). “But that presumption
‘may be overcome by specific language’ in a provision or evi-
dence ‘drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole.’” Patel,
596 U.S. at 347 (quoting Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467
U.S. 340, 349 (1984)). Only “when a statute is silent[,]” does
the presumption apply. Id. at 346. If “the statute is clear, we
have no reason to resort to the presumption of reviewability.”
Id. at 347; see also Bouarfa, 2024 WL 5048700, at *7 (refusing
to apply the presumption in analyzing whether §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of a visa revocation under 8
U.S.C. § 1155).
The statutes here are clear. The “specific language” of §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1255(a) provide “clear and convincing
evidence” that Congress declined to permit review of the
Gedas’ claims. See Thigulla, 94 F.4th at 776. Congress could
have provided for judicial review of the regulations, policies
and procedures used to implement § 1255 as it did with §
1225(b)(1)—but it chose not to. See § 1252(e)(3)(A)(ii). In-
stead, Congress “trigger[ed] the application of §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)” through “the explicit use of language grant-
ing discretion[.]” Alaka, 456 F.3d at 98.
Finally, the Gedas contend that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) only
precludes review of decisions or actions, whereas they chal-
lenge the USCIS’s “inaction” on green card applications under
the Adjudication Hold Policy. Put another way, the Gedas
challenge the lack of a final decision, which they argue is not
itself a decision. This argument rests on faulty logic. Inter-
preting the phrase “decision or action” in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
to include the final decision on the relief sought would render
the entirety of subparagraph (i) superfluous as related to §
1255(a). See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (barring judicial review of
“any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section .
. . 1255[.]”); see also Patel, 596 U.S. at 339 (“§
1252(a)(2)(B)(i) encompasses not just ‘the granting of relief’
[under § 1255(a)] but also any judgment relating to the grant-
ing of relief.”).
The Adjudication Hold Policy reflects a decision by USCIS
about how to exercise its discretion to adjust a noncitizen’s

-- 17 of 18 --

18
status to lawful permanent resident. Whether the Adjudication
Hold Policy is the most sensible approach to managing pending
green card applications and a visa backlog is not up to this
Court. In § 1255, Congress granted the Secretary broad discre-
tionary authority to control the process through which it would
use its discretion to adjust a noncitizen’s status. The Adjudi-
cation Hold Policy is an exercise of that statutorily specified
discretion, so we are jurisdictionally barred by §
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) from reviewing Gedas’ claims.
When jurisdiction is lacking, “the only function remaining
to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the
cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514
(1868)). The District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction,
and so does this Court. Only the executive and legislative
branches can provide the relief the Gedas seek.
IV. CONCLUSION
The order of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 18 of 18 --