NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 19-1476 _______________ DR. SUSAN MOUSAVI, Appellant v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00870) District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on July 10, 2020 Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 21, 2020 ) _______________ OPINION * _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Courts have jurisdiction to review immigration decisions only if a statute grants it. But Congress can limit what it grants. No court can review “any . . . decision or action” that is left, by statute, to the Attorney General’s or Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Dr. Susan Mousavi asked the District Court to review the denial of her national-interest waiver by U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (the Agency). The District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction because the statute commits that decision to the Agency’s discretion. We agree. So we will affirm its dismissal of her claims and its denial of leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND In allocating worker visas, the Immigration and Nationality Act gives priority to aliens with advanced degrees or exceptional talents. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). To qualify, aliens or- dinarily need a U.S. job offer in hand. § 1153(b)(2)(A). But the Attorney General can make a limited exception to the job-offer requirement if he “deems it to be in the national inter- est.” § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). That exception is called a “[n]ational interest waiver.” Id. Mousavi sought one of these national-interest waivers. A citizen of Iran, she got her Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from New York University and lived lawfully in New Jersey with her family for several years. In 2016, Mousavi went to visit her sick mother in Iran. When she left, she had several petitions pending with the Agency: an I-140 petition for a national-interest waiver, an I-485 petition to become a lawful permanent resident, and an I-131 application for advance parole. While Mousavi was in Iran, the Agency denied her pending petitions. It said she had not shown that a waiver would be in the national interest. She repeatedly challenged that decision, and the Agency repeatedly reaffirmed it. She has not been let back into the country. 2 Mousavi sued the Agency in federal court. The District Court, relying on § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also denied as futile leave to file a second amended complaint and denied her motion to reconsider. She now appeals. II. THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION Federal-question jurisdiction is a creature of statute: 28 U.S.C. § 1331. So it also can be limited by statute. And Congress has chosen to limit jurisdiction to review the Agency’s discretionary immigration decisions. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The question is whether that provision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals