Background
Eugene Ezenwa Ebem filed a complaint in the Northern District of Texas seeking to compel USCIS officials to adjudicate his I-485 petition for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Ebem’s application had been pending for over 43 months without final action. He argued that the district court had jurisdiction to hear his claim under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act, and he also asserted a due process claim alleging deprivation of a protected interest.
Ebem additionally filed a motion to amend his complaint and join his wife as a plaintiff on September 5, 2025—nearly one year after the case commenced and approximately one month after the magistrate judge issued her Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and denied Ebem’s motion to amend. Ebem appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on all grounds. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) establishes a jurisdictional bar preventing federal courts from reviewing USCIS decisions regarding adjustment of status applications, regardless of whether claims arise under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Mandamus Act. Citing precedent including Momin v. Jaddou and Cheejati v. Blinken, the court confirmed that this jurisdictional bar applies even outside the removal context.
On Ebem’s due process claim, the court affirmed that he possesses no protected liberty interest in adjustment of status proceedings or interests related to those proceedings. Without a protected interest, no due process violation could occur. Regarding the motion to amend, the court found the district court properly denied it because Ebem filed the motion after an unreasonable and undue delay—nearly a year into litigation and following issuance of the magistrate’s report.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review USCIS decisions on I-485 adjustment of status applications, even when applications remain pending for years without adjudication.
- The jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies broadly and is not limited to removal proceedings.
- Applicants seeking adjustment of status have no constitutionally protected liberty interest that would trigger due process protections.
- Courts will deny motions to amend complaints when filed with undue delay, particularly after the magistrate judge has already issued findings and recommendations.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for immigration practitioners and applicants because it reaffirms that judicial intervention is not available as a remedy for delayed I-485 adjudications, even when delays span multiple years. The holding underscores the limited review available in immigration benefit proceedings and emphasizes that federal courts cannot compel agency action on pending applications, regardless of the length of delay or hardship to the applicant.
For counsel representing applicants with pending I-485 cases, the decision confirms that relief from agency delay must be pursued through administrative channels or other statutory mechanisms rather than through federal district court litigation. The jurisdictional bar operates as a complete bar to federal judicial review in this context.