Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionstatutevisa
jurisdictionvisa

Related Cases

Plane CCA CUT , Matter of
View Case »
Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales
View Case »
Sahi v. Gonzales
View Case »
Purba v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gordon v. Barr
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Khalil v. Hazuda

Facts

Syed Naiyer Khalil, a citizen of India, was working in the U.S. on an H1-B visa. His employer, Herbal Pharma, filed an I-140 petition on his behalf in 2006, which was approved, allowing him to apply for permanent resident status. However, Khalil's application for adjustment of status was denied in 2011 due to unauthorized employment. After his employer's position was no longer available, USCIS revoked his I-140 petition in 2014, leading Khalil to challenge the revocation in federal court.

Syed Naiyer Khalil, a citizen of India, was working in the U.S. on an H1-B visa. His employer, Herbal Pharma, filed an I-140 petition on his behalf in 2006, which was approved, allowing him to apply for permanent resident status.

Issue

Whether Khalil could benefit from the portability provision of 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) after his application for adjustment of status was no longer pending at the time of the revocation of his I-140 petition.

Whether Khalil could benefit from the portability provision of 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) after his application for adjustment of status was no longer pending at the time of the revocation of his I-140 petition.

Rule

The portability provision of 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) applies only to individuals whose applications for adjustment of status have been filed and remain unadjudicated for 180 days or more.

The portability provision of 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) applies only to individuals whose applications for adjustment of status have been filed and remain unadjudicated for 180 days or more.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory text of 1154(j) and concluded that it only applies to applications for adjustment of status that are still pending. Since Khalil's application had been denied before the revocation of his I-140 petition, he could not claim the benefits of the portability provision. The court also noted that the adjudicator's failure to address Khalil's argument regarding the interpretation of the statute meant that the decision was not entitled to deference.

The court analyzed the statutory text of 1154(j) and concluded that it only applies to applications for adjustment of status that are still pending.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Khalil's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that USCIS's revocation of his I-140 petition was not in violation of 1154(j).

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Khalil's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that USCIS's revocation of his I-140 petition was not in violation of 1154(j).

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review USCIS's discretionary decision to revoke Khalil's I-140 petition.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review USCIS's discretionary decision to revoke Khalil's I-140 petition.

You must be