Hernandez Luquin v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Appellate Case: 21-3164 Document: 010110716014 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 26, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GABRIEL HERNANDEZ LUQUIN; HERMELINDA MANCILLAS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No. 21-3164 (D.C. No. 6:20-CV-01215-KHV-GEB) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF (D. Kan.) HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UR JADDOU; DAWN R. EVANS, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revoked the approval of a Form I-130 visa petition filed by Hermelinda Mancillas on behalf of  In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Alejandro Mayorkas and Ur Jaddou are substituted respectively for Chad Wolf and Kenneth Cuccinelli as respondents in this action. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-3164 Document: 010110716014 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 2 her son Gabriel Hernandez Luquin and denied Mr. Hernandez’s Form I-485 application for adjustment of status because of the revocation. Ms. Mancillas and Mr. Hernandez challenged those administrative decisions in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court dismissed for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction, citing Green v. Napolitano, 627 F.3d 1341, 1346 (10th Cir. 2010), in which we held that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s revocation of a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1155 is a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review. On appeal Ms. Mancillas and Mr. Hernandez ask that Green be overruled, but a panel cannot overrule a prior panel’s published opinion. They also ask that we hold the jurisdiction-stripping statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) unconstitutional, but that argument is not preserved for our review. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. In 1995 Ms. Mancillas, then a lawful permanent resident, filed a Form I-130 petition with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service on behalf of Mr. Hernandez, her purportedly unmarried son, so that Mr. Hernandez could begin the process of becoming a lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2)(B) (allocating a limited number of family-sponsored visas to unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents). The petition was approved in 1996. In 2017 Mr. Hernandez filed a Form I-485 application for adjustment of status. During an interview to determine his eligibility in 2018, Mr. Hernandez indicated that he was single and never married. Soon after the interview USCIS issued him a Notice of Intent …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals