Herrera v. Bondi
Olivia Montiel Herrera v. Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General, Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Gregory File, Field Office Director, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01369
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Olivia Montiel Herrera v. Pamela Bondi, Judge Menendez dismissed the case after concluding that federal law strips courts of the power to review the government's denial of Herrera's application to become a lawful permanent resident.
Noncitizen immigrants who have been denied adjustment of status (I-485 applications) by USCIS and are seeking to challenge those denials in federal district court, including spouses of U.S. citizens whose applications were denied on factual grounds such as failure to prove lawful entry.
What happened
In Olivia Montiel Herrera v. Pamela Bondi, Olivia Montiel Herrera, a Mexican citizen married to a U.S. citizen and living in Minnesota, applied to change her immigration status to lawful permanent resident (a process called 'adjustment of status') by filing an I-485 application. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her application, concluding she had not proven she entered the country legally, even after she submitted an affidavit and additional evidence. She then sued in federal court, arguing the denial violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is a law allowing people to challenge federal agency decisions in court.
The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that federal law — specifically a provision of the INA — removes federal courts' power to review decisions about adjustment of status. The court agreed, relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which explicitly states that no court may review judgments about granting or denying adjustment of status under § 1255. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reinforced this interpretation in Patel v. Garland (2022), holding that courts cannot review even factual findings made as part of such decisions. Herrera's argument that she actually met the legal requirements for adjustment of status did not change the analysis, because the INA gives the government discretion to deny the application even when an applicant meets the requirements.
Judge Menendez also rejected Herrera's APA claim, explaining that when another statute — here, the INA — bars judicial review, the APA's general right to challenge agency decisions does not apply. Herrera raised a due process (constitutional fairness) argument for the first time in her response brief, but the court declined to consider it because she had not included it in her original complaint, and parties are not permitted to introduce new legal claims through response briefs. The court also noted that even if she had raised the due process claim properly, she provided no legal analysis or authority to support it. Judge Menendez granted the government's motion to dismiss and dismissed the entire case.
The detailed version
- Olivia Montiel Herrera v. Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General, et al., No. 25-cv-01369 (KMM/DLM)
- United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge
- October 22, 2025
Background Plaintiff Olivia Montiel Herrera, a Mexican national, entered the United States on March 15, 1999 through a port of entry where her vehicle was inspected and she was admitted by a border agent. She now resides in Minnesota and is married to a U.S. citizen. In February 2022, her husband filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, which USCIS approved in December 2023. Concurrently, Herrera filed an I-485 Application to Adjust Status — the form used to apply for lawful permanent residence from within the United States. USCIS issued a request for evidence asking for proof of legal entry; Herrera submitted an affidavit and supporting documents, but USCIS declined to accept this evidence and denied the I-485 application on the ground that she failed to prove lawful entry. An appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Herrera filed this federal lawsuit on April 11, 2025, asserting two claims: (1) that USCIS's denial violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), because she meets all statutory criteria for adjustment of status; and (2) that the denial was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. She requested that the court either grant her I-485 application directly or order the defendants to grant it.
Legal Framework Section 1255(a) of the INA grants the Attorney General (and, by delegated authority, USCIS) discretion to adjust a removable noncitizen's status to lawful permanent resident if the noncitizen meets enumerated requirements. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) — a jurisdiction-stripping provision — prohibits federal courts from reviewing (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under § 1255, or (ii) any decision or action of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security where authority is specified to be discretionary. The Supreme Court in Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), interpreted this provision strictly, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to review even factual findings made as part of a § 1255 determination, even where those findings resulted in a finding of ineligibility.
Ruling on INA Claim The court held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and Patel v. Garland plainly bar judicial review of Herrera's INA claim. The court rejected Herrera's attempt to distinguish Patel on the ground that she, unlike the petitioner in Patel, actually qualifies for adjustment of status. Citing the Eighth Circuit's decision in Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770 (8th Cir. 2024), the court explained that § 1255(a) grants discretion to the Attorney General to adjust status even after an applicant meets statutory requirements, meaning the court's jurisdiction is precluded regardless of whether Herrera is eligible.
Ruling on APA Claim The court held that the APA's general right to judicial review of agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 702, does not apply when another statute precludes review. Under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), the APA's review provisions are inapplicable where statutes preclude judicial review. Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review of discretionary acts under § 1255 — including the final decision at issue here — Herrera's APA claim is likewise barred for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court relied again on Thigulla, 94 F.4th at 775–77.
Ruling on Constitutional (Due Process) Claim In her response brief, Herrera raised for the first time a claim that her constitutional due process rights were violated. The court noted that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves judicial review of constitutional claims arising from the adjustment-of-status process, so such a claim would not be jurisdictionally barred in the same way. However, the court declined to consider the due process argument because Herrera had not pleaded it in her complaint. Citing Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992 (8th Cir. 1989), and Alexander v. Hedback, No. 11-cv-3590 (D. Minn. 2012), the court reiterated the settled rule that a complaint cannot be amended through opposition briefs and that new causes of action cannot be raised for the first time in briefing. The court further noted that even had the due process claim been properly pleaded, Herrera provided no legal analysis or authority to support the proposition that a discretionary denial of an I-485 application constitutes a due process violation.
Disposition Judge Menendez granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and dismissed the matter in its entirety, citing Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), which requires dismissal of the entire complaint when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, though dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are typically without prejudice.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.