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

jurisdictionattorneycorporationjudicial review
jurisdictionattorneycorporationjudicial review

Related Cases

William v. AES Corp.
View Case »
Terrado v. Moyer
View Case »
Ashtari v. Pompeo
View Case »
Attipoe v. Barr
View Case »
Espin v. Gantner
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rajasekaran v. Hazuda

Facts

Rajasekaran, a native of India, had an I-140 petition filed by Pacific West Corporation, which was approved. After Rajasekaran and his family filed I-485 applications that remained unadjudicated for over 180 days, he ported to new employers who did not file new I-140 petitions on his behalf. In 2012, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the I-140 petition due to alleged fraud, which Pacific West did not respond to. USCIS subsequently revoked the I-140 and denied Rajasekaran's I-485 application, leading him to seek judicial review.

Rajasekaran, a native of India, had an I-140 petition filed by Pacific West Corporation, which was approved. After Rajasekaran and his family filed I-485 applications that remained unadjudicated for over 180 days, he ported to new employers who did not file new I-140 petitions on his behalf.

Issue

Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the revocation of Rajasekaran's I-140 petition and whether he was statutorily eligible for adjustment of status under the job-portability provision.

Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the revocation of Rajasekaran's I-140 petition and whether he was statutorily eligible for adjustment of status under the job-portability provision.

Rule

The court applied the prohibition of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) regarding discretionary decisions of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security, and the requirements for job-portability under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000.

The court applied the prohibition of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) regarding discretionary decisions of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security, and the requirements for job-portability under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000.

Analysis

The court determined that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the USCIS had provided notice of the revocation to the appropriate parties, and Rajasekaran's complaints did not overcome the statutory prohibition on judicial review. Furthermore, the court found that Rajasekaran was not eligible for adjustment of status because the I-140 petition was invalid due to deficiencies identified by USCIS.

The court determined that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the USCIS had provided notice of the revocation to the appropriate parties, and Rajasekaran's complaints did not overcome the statutory prohibition on judicial review.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Rajasekaran's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and upheld the finding that he was not statutorily eligible for adjustment of status.

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Rajasekaran's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and upheld the finding that he was not statutorily eligible for adjustment of status.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the United States government, as the court upheld the dismissal of Rajasekaran's claims based on lack of jurisdiction and the invalidity of his I-140 petition.

The prevailing party was the United States government, as the court upheld the dismissal of Rajasekaran's claims based on lack of jurisdiction and the invalidity of his I-140 petition.

You must be