Rajasekaran v. Hazuda, No. 14-3623 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a native and citizen of India, sought review of the USCIS revocation of an I-140 petition and denial of his I-485 adjustment-of-status application. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether USCIS failed to comply with disclosure requirements under regulation 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16). The court also found that plaintiff is not statutorily eligible to adjust status where plaintiff could not port his I-140 because the I-140 was not valid to begin with: USCIS found numerous petition deficiencies in its investigation of the employer's fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Immigration. The district court did not have jurisdiction to review the claim that the USCIS did not comply with the disclosure requirements in 8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.2(b)(16); plaintiff could not port his I-140 to subsequent employers because the I-140 was not valid to begin with as the USCIS found numerous deficiencies in the petition submitted by the original employer.
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.