Kurapati v. USCIS, No. 13-13554 (11th Cir. 2014)Annotate this Case
Plaintiff and his wife, natives and citizens of India, appealed from the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their complaint challenging USCIS's revocation of I-140 visa petitions filed on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff and his wife challenged the district court's conclusion that, because plaintiff was a beneficiary, instead of the petitioner, of an I-140 visa petition, he and his wife lacked standing to bring their claims. In this case, the district court concluded that 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) precluded constitutional standing because it specifically excludes immigrant beneficiaries such as plaintiff in its definition of parties with standing to challenge I-140 visa petition revocations. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of constitutional standing where the regulatory definition of "affected party" does not preclude the beneficiary from having standing in the district court, as it relates to who has the ability to challenge the administrative denial of a petition. Therefore, it is not a binding statement of constitutional standing. The court also concluded that a beneficiary of an I-140 visa petition who has applied for adjustment of status has attempted to port under 8 U.S.C. 1154(j) falls within the class of plaintiffs Congress has authorized to challenge the denial of that I-140 petition. Consequently, plaintiff falls within the zone of interests and may challenge the I-140 visa petition revocation. Further, applying the analysis in Bonillo v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the court concluded that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in the complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 7, 2017.