Santana Pouza v. USCIS Miami, et al, No. 12-13377 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-13377 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20651-FAM SANTANA POUZA, a.k.a. Santana Pouzo, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus USCIS MIAMI, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 1, 2013) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Santana Pouza, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals the dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1). Pouza sought an order directing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to grant her parole into the United States. We affirm. The district court correctly dismissed Pouza s complaint. The decision whether to parole an alien into the United States rests within the discretion of the Secretary, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(a), and that discretionary decision is shielded from judicial review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The district court lacked authority to consider Pouza s complaint under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, because the Secretary did not owe Pouza a clear nondiscretionary duty. Lifestar Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004). And the district court could not review Pouza s complaint under either the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, or the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because neither serves as an independent basis for subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Choctaw Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.2d 609, 615 (11th Cir. 1985) (addressing the Administrative Act); Borden v. Katzman, 881 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1989) (addressing the Declaratory Judgment Act). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pouza s complaint. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.