Silva Mamigonian v. Michael Biggs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where USCIS reopened 2 a petition it had previously denied, the previous denial is not a “final agency action” for a district 3 court to review
• holding “that district courts maintain jurisdiction to hear [certain] cases under the APA challenging final agency determinations respecting eligibility for the immigration benefits enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) made on nondiscretionary grounds”
• stating that “because USCIS had not made final determinations on Ms. Mamigonian’s reopened adjustment-of-status applications when she filed suit, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review USCIS’s actions” under the APA
• interpreting the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which states that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i
• “[T]he REAL ID Act precludes aliens . . . from seeking habeas relief over final orders of removal in district courts.”
• “Habeas relief for final orders of removal is only available through a petition to the court of appeals.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).