NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted June 28, 2019* Decided July 1, 2019 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 18‐2563 ADEOYE ORIADE ADEBOWALE and Appeal from the United States District RACHELLE B. SHROPSHIRE‐ Court for the Northern District of Illinois, ADEBOWALE, Eastern Division. Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. No. 17‐CV‐00476 KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., John J. Tharp, Jr., Defendants‐Appellees. Judge. ORDER Adeoye Oriade Adebowale and his wife, Rachelle Shropshire‐Adebowale, sued the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) because the agency refused to review Adebowale’s application for permanent residency. After the suit was filed, the USCIS changed course: it reviewed Adebowale’s application and denied it on the merits * We agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 18‐2563 Page 2 because an immigration judge had entered a removal order against him. Adebowale argues that the district court should have deemed the removal order void and adjudicated his suit. But the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the case, so we affirm. Adebowale entered the United States from the United Kingdom 15 years ago under the Visa Waiver Program. He unsuccessfully applied for asylum with the USCIS. His case was referred to an immigration judge, but he failed to appear at his hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. Adebowale later moved to reopen his proceedings, but the immigration judge denied the motion. We dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction. Adebowale v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 2008). Adebowale remained in the United States and married Rachelle Shropshire, a U.S. citizen. She filed an I‐130 petition, the first step in the family‐based green card process. Adebowale in turn applied to adjust his status based on his wife’s I‐130 petition. But the USCIS determined that Adebowale’s removal order stripped it of jurisdiction to review his application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1245.2(a)(1), 245.2(a)(1). Adebowale suspects that the USCIS maintains a bias against him based on his adjustment‐of‐status interview at which a USCIS officer raised the fact that Adebowale’s ex‐girlfriend had made domestic‐violence allegations against him. Assisted by counsel, Adebowale then filed a second application, arguing that the removal order was void because it was entered in “asylum only”—not “removal”— proceedings. But the USCIS once more denied Adebowale’s application on jurisdictional grounds. Again, the USCIS officer raised the same allegations at the interview. Adebowale filed this suit seeking mandamus and declaratory relief against the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the USCIS Director, and the USCIS Chicago District Director. Adebowale asked the district court to order the USCIS to adjudicate his applications, sought a declaration that the in absentia removal order was void, and requested an order of mandamus ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals