# Chen

> District Court, D. Oregon · December 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11227091

## Case

- **Full name:** Yong Chen 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
- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** December 17, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11227091

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11227091. Public record. Not legal advice.