Chirino Terrero v. Montgomery et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YILENA CHIRINO TERRERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR MICHELLE
MONTGOMERY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3538-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Yilena Chirino Terrero’s Amended Complaint for
Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief. (Doc. 4). The Court previously dismissed
Ms. Terrero’s initial petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted her
twenty-eight (28) days to refile addressing the Court’s concerns. (Doc. 3). For the
same reasons set forth in the Court’s January 8, 2026 Order, Ms. Terrero has again
failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.
Ms. Terrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants Michelle
Montgomery, Dallas Field Office Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and
Joseph Edlow, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (collectively,
“Defendants”), to adjudicate her pending I-485 application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status. Ms. Terrero contends that the Defendants have failed to
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
adjudicate her I-485 applications within a reasonable time and requests this Court’s
intervention under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act.1
Jurisdiction over these claims hinges entirely on agency discretion, or lack
thereof. The APA does not provide judicial review to the extent that “agency action
is committed to agency discretion by law.”2 The Immigration and Naturalization Act
(INA) confers such discretion on executive branch agencies.3 And then the INA strips
courts of jurisdiction over individual immigration decisions or actions the executive
branch is to make:
[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory)
. . . and [28 U.S.C.] sections 1361 and 1651 . . . no court shall have
jurisdiction to review—
(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . .
1255 [adjustment of status] . . . or
(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is
specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.4
1 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
2 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); see also Bian v. Clinton, 605 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2010) (“The APA
provides for judicial review of government action ‘only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed
to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.’” (quoting Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.,
542 U.S. 55, 64–65 (2004)), vacated on mootness grounds, Nos. 09-10568 & 09-10742, 2010 WL 3633770
(Sept. 16, 2010)).
3 See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (“The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or
paroled into the United States . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and
under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive
an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an
immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.”).
4 Bian, 605 F.3d at 253 (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)).
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
The Fifth Circuit has confirmed that courts are without jurisdiction to entertain such
APA claims, and that Section 1252 applies to the government’s “grant or denial of an
application for adjustment of status.”5
Here, even upon repleading, Ms. Terrero failed to identify any statutory
authority demonstrating that the government lacks discretion regarding the actions
she challenges. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2026.
____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>