Judicial Non-Reviewability of USCIS Adjustment-of-Status Delays under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Introduction

Madhu Sudhan Kanapuram and Swathi Pillarisetty, Indian nationals residing in the United States on temporary employment-based visas, sought to adjust their immigration status to lawful permanent residents by filing Form I-485 applications (adjustment of status). After their priority dates fell within the cut-off under the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin, that “Final Action Date” retrogressed, placing them out of the queue. After a 19-month wait with no adjudication, they sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging USCIS’s delay and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The key issue was whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary delays in adjudicating adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held that:

8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) grants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS broad discretion to prescribe regulations and processes for adjustment of status, including timing and procedures.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of any decision or action “the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion” of DHS or the Attorney General.
A policy requiring a visa to be available at both filing and adjudication (including retrogression-based holds) falls within that statutory discretion.
Because the appellants challenged precisely that discretionary policy and its implementation, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over their APA claims.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that Chevron-style deference or merits review is precluded by the jurisdiction-stripping language in § 1252(a)(2)(B).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014): Described the three-step process for employer-sponsored adjustment of status (labor certification, Form I-140 petition, Form I-485 application) and recognized that agencies must follow their own binding procedures.
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835 (3d Cir. 2025): Held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review of delays in adjudicating Form I-485 because § 1255(a) vests USCIS with discretion over the entire adjustment process.
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388 (5th Cir. 2024): Reached the same conclusion on jurisdiction, observing that delays tied to retrogression and Visa Bulletin changes are part of the statutorily committed discretion.
Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770 (8th Cir. 2024): Confirmed that delay claims over Form I-485 processing fall within § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s bar.
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010): Discussed the presumption of reviewability of agency action under the APA and how clear statutory language can overcome that presumption.
Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993): Reiterated that courts will not find jurisdictional bars without “clear and convincing evidence” of congressional intent.
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022): Clarified that § 1252(a)(2)(B) is not limited by its heading (“Judicial review of orders of removal”) but applies “regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings.”

Legal Reasoning

Two statutory provisions are at the heart of the court’s reasoning:

8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (Adjustment of Status): “The status of an alien … may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe … if … an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.” This language explicitly vests USCIS with discretion to craft and implement regulations governing the timing, sequence, and prerequisites for adjustment.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (Jurisdictional Bar): “No court shall have jurisdiction to review … any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified … to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary ….” The court viewed the decision to delay or hold I-485 adjudications when visas are unavailable (retrogression policy) as a quintessential exercise of that statutory discretion.

Because the appellants directly challenged the retrogression-based hold policy—arguing it was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally improper—the court concluded their claims fall squarely within the discretionary realm that Congress withdrew from judicial review. Even though agencies must follow their own binding regulations, the court emphasized that it was Congress, not the agency, that conferred this broad discretion. Where those regulations track the statutory grant, courts cannot second-guess the policy choices or timing decisions.

Impact

This decision cements a uniform national rule that claims challenging delays in I-485 adjudication tied to Visa Bulletin retrogression or other discretionary timing policies are non-reviewable in federal court. Practical effects include:

Limitation on APA actions: Applicants can no longer invoke the APA to compel faster adjudications when visa numbers retrogress.
Reliance on administrative remedies: Petitioners must turn to USCIS’s internal supervisory review or appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office, as district courts lack jurisdiction.
Predictability for USCIS: Agencies may design procedures to manage visa retrogression and workflow without fear of nationwide injunctions based on delay claims.
Potential inequities: Individuals with long-pending I-485 applications may endure extended waits with no judicial recourse, particularly those from oversubscribed countries like India and China.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Priority Date: The date a labor certification or visa petition is filed, establishing an applicant’s place in line for a limited annual visa number.
Visa Bulletin / Final Action Date: A monthly State Department publication that sets cut-off dates (Final Action Dates) for visa availability by category and country. Applicants with priority dates earlier than the cut-off can obtain visas.
Retrogression: A backward movement of the Final Action Date when projected visa demand exceeds supply, making previously eligible applicants ineligible until numbers free up.
8 U.S.C. § 1255(a): The immigration statute granting DHS discretion to adjust an alien’s status to lawful permanent resident, subject to regulations.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii): A jurisdiction-stripping provision that bars courts from reviewing any DHS or Attorney General decision committed by statute to agency discretion.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The federal law that generally allows courts to review agency actions for procedural defects, legal error, or arbitrary decision-making—unless Congress has clearly precluded such review.

Conclusion

Madhu Sudhan Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS reaffirms that Congress, through 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(a) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), has vested DHS with broad discretion over adjustment-of-status applications and expressly withheld federal-court jurisdiction over challenges to discretionary aspects of that process. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision aligns with a growing consensus in other circuits and underscores the narrow avenues for judicial intervention in visa-related delays. For immigration practitioners and applicants, this decision highlights the importance of internal administrative ― rather than district-court ― remedies when facing extended I-485 processing times due to visa retrogression.