In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-3521 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation- al, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013. He used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for immigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS” or “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked its approval roughly two years later. 2 No. 17-3521 Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. But the district court concluded that Congress had stripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations of visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate- way offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t preclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during the adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the ruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging the agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot evade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his substantive complaints as procedural objections. I. Background Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate- gory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien must show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the process of investing” the minimum amount of capital and that his investment “will … create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million, but $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted employment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(f)(2). An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using Form I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he No. 17-3521 3 receives a conditional form of permanent-resident status. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for what [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an approved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor- tunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R. § 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in writing and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca- tion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and 23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist- ed Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise” under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by Attorney Taher ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals