Hicham Aldarwich v. Mark Hazuda

MEMORANDUM

1. Hicham Aldarwich appeals the district court’s dismissal of this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm the dismissal of the complaint.

2. To the extent that Aldarwich’s complaint sought to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his application for adjustment of status and to declare that he was not inadmissible, that claim became moot when the USCIS denied the application during the district court proceedings. See Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir.2013). Both the district court and this court lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of the adjustment of status application. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1159 (b), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 248-49 , 130 S.Ct. 827 , 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010); Mamigonian, 710 F.3d at 943 .

3. Aldarwich argues that a live controversy exists because he also sought review of the USCIS’s underlying non-discretionary determination that he was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(B). Mamigonian clarified that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D) does not strip the district courts of jurisdiction…