Nonreviewability of USCIS Adjudication Hold Policy under INA § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Introduction

In Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 4th Cir. No. 23-1799 (June 3, 2025), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) policy of holding adjustment of status applications in abeyance when priority dates retrogress. Plaintiffs–applicants facing multi-year backlogs—claimed that USCIS’s “Adjudication Hold Policy” violated the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying final action. The government countered that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the courts of jurisdiction because adjustment of status is committed to agency discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Fourth Circuit joined four other circuits in holding that challenges to the hold policy are non-justiciable.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that:

Adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) is “in the discretion” of the Attorney General (now DHS Secretary) and subject to regulations the agency may prescribe.
USCIS’s adoption and application of an adjudication-in-abeyance policy is a “decision or action” committed to that discretion.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) therefore precludes judicial review of such discretionary decisions or actions.

Consequently, the Court found no subject‐matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs’ APA claims and affirmed the dismissal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Shaiban v. Jaddou, 4th Cir. (2024): Recognized that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review of denials of status adjustments when the underlying statute grants discretion.
Lovo v. Miller, 4th Cir. (2024): Distinguished inaction from a discrete “decision or action” under a similar jurisdiction-stripping provision.
Kanapuram v. Dir., USCIS, 11th Cir. (2025): Upheld nonreviewability of the hold policy under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Geda v. Dir., USCIS, 3d Cir. (2025): Held that § 1255(a) confers discretion to prescribe regulations, shielding the hold policy from review.
Cheejati v. Blinken, 5th Cir. (2024) and Thigulla v. Jaddou, 8th Cir. (2024): Reached the same result, joining the circuit consensus.

Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Text: 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) authorizes the Attorney General to adjust status “in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This broad grant includes both the ultimate decision and the procedural framework.

2. Jurisdiction-Stripping: Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) removes court jurisdiction over “any decision or action . . . the authority for which is specified . . . to be in the discretion” of the Attorney General or DHS Secretary.

3. Decision or Action: Unlike pure inaction, USCIS’s hold policy is a deliberate, published procedure—choices about when to hold or deny applications are affirmative actions, not omissions.

4. Presumption of Reviewability: Courts presume agency actions are reviewable. Only a “clear and convincing” indication from Congress can overcome that presumption. The Fourth Circuit found § 1255(a) and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) satisfy that standard.

5. Circuit Uniformity: The Fourth Circuit aligned with the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, reinforcing a national consensus that challenges to the hold policy are non-justiciable.

Impact

Establishes binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit that all discretionary elements of the adjustment of status process—including hold policies—are insulated from judicial review.
Limits litigants to administrative remedies and political channels (e.g., Congress or DHS rulemaking) if they seek to change hold practices or visa‐allocation procedures.
Reinforces agency autonomy in managing visa‐number supply and demand, potentially at the expense of individual applicants’ ability to challenge delays under the APA.
Suggests a narrow exception remains available for claims that USCIS violated its own regulations, since an agency cannot escape review by flouting its own rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Priority Date & Retrogression: Each employment‐based green card application has a “priority date” based on the labor certification filing. If demand exceeds annual visa limits for a country or category, the Department of State moves the “final action date” backward, delaying who may receive a visa.
Adjudication Hold Policy: When an applicant’s priority date was “current” at filing but retrogression occurs before final adjudication, USCIS “holds” the application in abeyance until visas become available again.
Jurisdiction-Stripping Provision: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), certain immigration decisions deemed discretionary by statute are off-limits to federal court review, even under the APA.
Mandamus Relief: A judicial order compelling an agency to act. Plaintiffs sought mandamus to force USCIS to adjudicate immediately, but the court found it lacked authority.

Conclusion

Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals cements the principle that when Congress entrusts USCIS with discretionary authority to regulate and manage the adjustment of status process, federal courts have no jurisdiction to second-guess how that discretion is exercised, including hold policies triggered by visa‐number retrogression. This decision unites the circuits, affirms agency latitude in managing statutory visa limits, and signals to applicants that recourse for lengthy delays lies ultimately outside the judiciary.