Umeshkumar Soni v. UR JADDOU, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Ser- vices

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-3220
UMESHKUMAR SONI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UR JADDOU, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Ser-
vices,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
No. 3:23-cv-50061 — Iain D. Johnston, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED MAY 29, 2024 — DECIDED JUNE 6, 2024
____________________
Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit
Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Umeshkumar Soni, a citizen
of Canada, has been in the United States unlawfully for more
than a year. Now he wants an immigrant visa. To obtain one
he must leave the United States and wait abroad for at least
ten years. 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Officials can waive that
waiting period, but most aliens cannot apply for a waiver

-- 1 of 4 --

2 No. 23-3220
while still in the United States—and, if an application made
from abroad is denied, the State Department will not begin to
address a visa application until the decade has expired. That’s
because eligibility for a visa depends on admissibility to this
nation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(g), 1255(a), and someone subject to
the ten-year waiting period is inadmissible.
One class of aliens may apply for a waiver of inadmissibil-
ity while still in the United States. A person “who is the
spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an
alien lawfully admi\ed for permanent residence” may obtain
a pre-departure waiver “if it is established to the satisfaction
of the A\orney General that the refusal of admission to such
immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citi-
zen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien.” 8
U.S.C. §1182(a)(9)(B)(v). Soni claims that he qualifies for this
exception—though his briefs do not give any details beyond
his statement that he applied on Form I-601A. After his appli-
cation had been pending for 17 months, Soni sued and asked
the district court to direct the agency to render a decision
within 14 days. But the district court dismissed the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the final sentence in
§1182(a)(9)(B)(v). 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206703 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
17, 2023).
That sentence reads: “No court shall have jurisdiction to
review a decision or action by the A\orney General regarding
a waiver under this clause.” (“This clause” refers to the rest of
§1182(a)(9)(B)(v).) Soni observes that delay in addressing an
application is not a “decision” on that application. Granted.
His problem is that courts lack jurisdiction to review a “deci-
sion or action regarding” a waiver. Se\ing priorities—for exam-
ple, how many employees to assign to processing applications

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 23-3220 3
under this clause, as opposed to handling other duties—is an
“action regarding” waivers.
Many applications for waivers are easy to address, but
others pose questions about whether the applicant has a qual-
ifying relative or whether “refusal of admission to such immi-
grant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or
lawfully resident spouse or parent.” Smith v. Garland, No. 23-
2874 (7th Cir. June 3, 2024), shows that it can be difficult to
answer a seemingly simple question such as whether A is
married to B. Allocating more personnel to dig into ma\ers
faster for one class of aliens would mean delayed decisions
for others: the Judicial Branch lacks authority to direct Con-
gress to increase the agency’s budget and hire a larger staff.
Soni tells us that the Administrative Procedure Act pre-
sumptively allows judicial review of agency inaction. That is
true, see 5 U.S.C. §706(1), but this grant of authority comes
with an exception: it does not apply when “statutes preclude
judicial review”. 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(1). Section 1182(a)(9)(B)(v)
does just that, so by its own terms the APA drops out. No re-
view means no review; the statute does not need to list all of
the many potential legal theories that are not reviewable. Cf.
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022). Section 1182(a)(9)(B)(v)
lacks a proviso parallel to the one in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D),
which allows judicial review of legal ma\ers. Cf. Wilkinson v.
Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024).
We grant that the current delay is onerous. In the past
seven years the number of annual applications for this pro-
gram has fallen by almost 50% (from roughly 66,000 to
roughly 36,000) while the average processing time has risen
by a factor of nine (from 4.9 months in 2017 to 43 months cur-
rently). See h\ps://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/ (time)

-- 3 of 4 --

4 No. 23-3220
and h\ps://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immi-
gration-and-citizenship-data/ (number of applications). Still,
it is the duty of the Executive Branch to address this opera-
tional problem; our duty is to abide by the law as enacted,
including the prohibition on judicial review.
As far as we can see, no other court of appeals has held
that a district court may order the Executive Branch to process
waiver applications under §1182(a)(9)(B)(v) on any particular
schedule, let alone within 14 days.
If the agency were to order Soni removed from the United
States while his waiver application remains pending, that de-
cision would be reviewable under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1). But
this possibility does not allow judicial intervention in the ab-
sence of a removal order.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --