Steven Dhillon v. Alejandro Mayorkas

MEMORANDUM

Steven and Ruby Dhillon appeal the grant of summary judgment to the government on their claims that they were denied due process of law during Ms. Dhillon’s removal proceedings and during the adjudication of Mr. Dhillon’s 1-130 petition for an immediate relative visa for Ms. Dhillon. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to Ms. Dhillon’s removal proceedings because “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals ... shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(5). The district court was also correct that the process by which Mr. Dhillon’s 1-130 petition was denied comports with the applicable statutes and regulations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154 ; 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2 , 103.3.

Finally, we also agree that the Dhillons received constitutionally adequate due process. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (explaining the factors to be considered). The Dhillons do…