Jahan et al v. Jaddou et al

1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ISRAT JAHAN, et al., 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
VS. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-4559
UR M. JADDOU, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs 	Israt 	Jahan 	(“Jahan”), 	Iftekhar 	Basith 	(“Basith”), 	Fatima 	Iftekhar
(“Fatima”), Jubaida Iftekhar (“Jubaida”), Mehwish Iftekhar (“Mehwish”), and Nurjahan
Begum (“Begum”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek judicial review under the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”) and a judicial declaration that the denials of Jahan’s applications
for adjustment of status and waiver of inadmissibility were arbitrary and capricious. (Dkt.
1 at p. 4; Dkt. 13 at pp. 3–4). Defendants Joseph Edlow1 and Carolyn Kemokai (collectively
“Defendants”) have moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Jahan is a native of Bangladesh and a Canadian
citizen who has lived in the United States since August of 2016. (Dkt. 1 at p. 2). Jahan is
1 Joseph Edlow, current Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, has been
substituted for Ur Jaddou. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04559 Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
married to Basith, who is a college professor and “the principal beneficiary of an
employment-based immigrant petition filed by Sam Houston State University.” (Dkt. 1 at
p. 2).
In September of 2018, Jahan, “based on being the spouse derivative beneficiary” of
Basith, filed a Form I-485 application to adjust her immigration status to that of a lawful
permanent resident. (Dkt. 1 at p. 3). After Jahan sat for an application interview, United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) notified her by letter of its intent
to deny her I-485 application. (Dkt. 1 at pp. 3–4). In its letter, USCIS cited an October 1999
incident in which Jahan applied for a diversity visa using a false name, fraudulent
documents, and a sham marriage:
Dkt. 1-5 at p. 1.
On account of that October 1999 visa application, USCIS further stated in its letter
that Jahan was inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because
she had sought to procure a visa by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.
(Dkt. 1-5 at p. 2).
After receiving USCIS’s letter, Jahan filed a Form I-601 application for waiver of
grounds of inadmissibility. (Dkt. 1 at p. 4). USCIS denied Jahan’s I-601 application (Dkt.
1 at p. 4), and this lawsuit followed. Defendant have moved for dismissal for lack of subject
Case 4:24-cv-04559 Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending that the
jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bar Plaintiffs’ claims. (Dkt.
12).
II. 	RULE 12(b)(1)
A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to
challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Ramming v.
United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). The party asserting that federal subject
matter jurisdiction exists bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ballew v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012). “[T]here is a
presumption against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing
an action to federal court.” Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may consider any of the following: (1) the complaint
alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or
(3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed
facts. Walch v. Adjutant General’s Department of Texas, 533 F.3d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2008).
“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks
the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Home Builders Association of
Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Court concludes that it lacks the power to adjudicate this case. As the Fifth
Circuit recently explained, “8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of
Case 4:24-cv-04559 Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility.” Momin v.
Jaddou, 113 F.4th 552, 560 (5th Cir. 2024). Momin compels dismissal of this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs have no answer for Momin, which goes unremarked in their papers. In
their briefing, Plaintiffs contend that “this Court retains its jurisdiction and authority to
review the arbitrary and capricious actions made by the Defendants under the Due Process
clause of the U.S. Constitution.” (Dkt. 13 at p. 4). However, Plaintiffs have not pled a claim
under the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, and in any event such a claim would fail
at the outset. Nyika v. Holder, 571 Fed. App’x 351, 352 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Because Nyika
had no liberty interest in adjustment of status, there can be no due process violation.”); see
also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (“This circuit has repeatedly
held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of
status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.”); Vasylchenko
v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 3:21-CV-2815, 2022 WL
2953018, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2022) (“The Fifth Circuit has held that adjustment of
status and interests related to these proceedings are not protected liberty interests that can
support a due process claim.”) (collecting cases).
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Dkt.
12) is GRANTED. Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 4:24-cv-04559 Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court will issue a separate final judgment.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on 	, 2026.
_______________________________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 6
Case 4:24-cv-04559 Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5