Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

YONG CHEN, Case No. 6:25-cv-00156-MTK

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

JENNIFER B. HIGGINS, Acting Director of

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

MARGARET ROSENAST, Portland Field

Office Director; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of

Homeland Security; and UNITED STATES

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES,

Defendants.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Yong Chen brings claims against Defendants Jennifer B. Higgins, Margaret

Rosenast, Kristi Noem, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”),

alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. Corrected Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39, 42, 46, ECF No. 13. Before the Court is Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF No.

21). For the reasons below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Chinese citizen who entered the country on October 8, 1994, seeking

asylum. Corrected Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff’s application was denied, but Plaintiff remained in

the country. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. Eventually Plaintiff had two children and built a life here in the

United States. Id. at ¶ 13. On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed an I-485 Application to Register

Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Id. at ¶ 15; Corrected Am. Compl. Ex. A, at 1.

On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first Complaint asking the Court to compel

Defendants to adjudicate his I-485 adjustment of status application. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. On

February 4, 2025, Defendants denied Plaintiff’s application under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).

Corrected Am. Compl. Ex. A, at 20.1 Defendants found that Plaintiff had misrepresented several

material facts when he sought to obtain admission into the United States. Id. Accordingly,

Plaintiff was held inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which states that “[a]ny alien

who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to

procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States . . . is

inadmissible.”

On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Corrected Amended Complaint, alleging that

Defendants improperly exercised their discretion because they did not properly apply the

standard for inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 42-45.

STANDARDS

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, a court is to “presume[] that a cause lies outside this

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court must dismiss any case over which it lacks subject

1 The Court notes that the accompanying exhibits to the Corrected Amended Complaint are in the

same PDF as the Corrected Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court’s references to specific

page numbers correspond to the page number of the PDF at ECF No. 13, rather than to page

numbers of individual exhibits.

matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th

Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

review Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff failed to state cognizable constitutional claims.

Because the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it does not reach the

merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), the Attorney General has discretion to adjust an applicant’s

immigration status where certain conditions are met. Congress has prescribed that, subject to

certain exceptions, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the

granting of relief under section . . . 1255 . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). One such exception

allows “review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed

with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

In addition to the statutory exceptions, the Supreme Court has also held that mixed questions of

law and fact are reviewable by an appropriate court of appeals. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S.

209, 212 (2024) (citing Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221, 225 (2020)).

Defendants assert that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s APA

claim under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Further, Defendants claim that this Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claims because those claims must be filed with

the appropriate court of appeals.

I. Plaintiff’s APA Claim

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the APA by misapplying the relevant legal

standard. Defendants argue that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips this Court of subject matter

jurisdiction because that section “prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of

relief under § 1255 . . . .” Def.’s Mot. Dismiss 9 (citing Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 338

(2022)) (emphasis removed).

Section 1255, and thus Section 1252, govern Defendant’s adjustment of status decision

that Plaintiff asks this Court to review. In Nakka v. United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, the Ninth Circuit held that Ҥ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips district courts of jurisdiction to

hear a plaintiff’s APA claim when that claim challenges an agency’s individualized denial of an

application for adjustment of status.” 111 F.4th 995, 1015 (9th Cir. 2024) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Nakka and Section 1252 preclude this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s APA claim.

Plaintiff, however, argues that Sanchez v. Mayorkas establishes that this Court has

jurisdiction to hear his claims. The parties in that case did not ask the Court to review USCIS’

individualized factual findings or analysis; instead, the parties asked the Court to decide the legal

question of “whether the conferral of [Temporary Protected Status] enable[d] [Petitioner] to

obtain [Lawful Permanent Resident] status despite his unlawful entry.” Sanchez v. Mayorkas,

593 U.S. 409, 411 (2021). In this case, Plaintiff has not asked the Court to interpret a statute, but

has instead asked whether USCIS properly applied the admissibility standards to Plaintiff’s facts.

Thus, Sanchez is distinguishable. Moreover, Sanchez was decided before Patel and Nakka, which

concluded that Section 1252’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions apply to individualized factual

determinations “relating to” a decision to grant or deny relief under Section 1255. Patel, 596

U.S. at 339; Nakka, 111 F.4th at 1015; see also Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 146

F.4th 743, 749 (9th Cir. 2025).

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his APA

claim because it is a mixed question of law and fact. To the extent that is true, the appropriate

court of appeals has jurisdiction over this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Wilkinson, 601 U.S.

at 212 (citation omitted). Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review

Plaintiff’s APA claim.

II. Plaintiff’s Constitutional Claims

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims must be dismissed because

those claims must be raised in a petition for review of a final order of removal in the appropriate

court of appeals. Section 1252(a)(2)(D) allows “review of constitutional claims or questions of

law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . .” That

Section “preserves review of legal and constitutional questions only when raised in a petition for

review of a final order of removal.” Patel, 596 U.S. at 345. “Such a petition for review arises

from removal proceedings before an [Immigration Judge] with review by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), and it is eventually brought in a circuit court of appeals . . . .”

Garcia, 146 F.4th at 748. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s

constitutional claims because the Court is not an “appropriate court of appeals.”

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED and

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 17th day of December 2025.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai

MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)

United States District Judge