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
In this immigration case, Plaintiff Yilena Chirino 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, to adjudicate her pending I-485 application to Register
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. Ms. Terrero contends that the Defendants
have failed to 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 But, as explained below, Ms. Terrero has failed to demonstrate why
this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims. The Court accordingly
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case and grants the Ms. Terrero
twenty-eight (28) days to refile her complaint and address the Court’s concerns.
1 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 3 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
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
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
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)).
5 Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 3 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate what Congress has
said it cannot adjudicate, and Ms. Terrero has failed to present any statutory
authority proving the government lacks discretion regarding the actions she
challenges. The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ms. Terrero
may refile her complaint within twenty-eight (28) days, which should address this
Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims to avoid dismissal with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03538-X Document 3 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>