FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMMAD POURSINA, No. 17-16579 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 4:16-cv-00591- RCC UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID ROARK, Director, Texas Service OPINION Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; JAMES MCCAMENT, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; RON ROSENBERG, Chief, Administrative Appeals Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 12, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed August 28, 2019 2 POURSINA V. USCIS Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain SUMMARY * Immigration Affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of Mohammad Poursina’s suit challenging the denial of his petition for a national-interest waiver related to his application for a work visa, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national- interest waiver. Poursina applied to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a permanent employment-based visa. Generally, an immigrant seeking such a visa must show that his services are sought by an employer in the United States. Because Poursina could not make that showing, he submitted a petition for a national- interest waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i), which provides that USCIS “may, when [USCIS] deems it to be in the national interest, waive” the requirement that the alien’s services be sought by a U.S. employer. USCIS denied the petition, and Poursina sought review in the district court, which dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. POURSINA V. USCIS 3 The panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national-interest waiver. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review “a decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The panel concluded that § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i)’s plain language specifies that the authority to grant (or to deny) a national-interest waiver is in the discretion of the Attorney General. In so concluding, the panel explained that the statute states that the Attorney General may waive the requirement and explained that the statute’s instruction that the waiver should only issue if the Attorney General “deems it to be in the national interest” reinforces its discretionary nature. The panel also noted that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) allows the courts to review certain legal conclusions, but concluded that the exception did not save Poursina’s non-constitutional claims because they simply repacked his core grievance that USCIS should have exercised its discretion in his favor. Reviewing Poursina’s due process claim ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals