Danuta Dec, a Polish citizen, was approved for a family-based visa in 2009 based on a petition filed by her sister. While waiting for the visa to issue, Dec remained in the United States unlawfully for more than one year, rendering her inadmissible for a ten-year period under federal law. In 2020, her mother, a lawful permanent resident, passed away. Dec subsequently filed a Form I-601A seeking a waiver of inadmissibility, invoking a statute that allows for the adjudication of related applications if a qualifying relative dies. The USCIS denied her application, determining that her mother was not the qualifying relative for her visa petition; therefore, the death of her mother did not trigger the statutory relief she sought. Dec challenged this denial in federal district court, arguing that the agency's decision was arbitrary and that the statute imposed nondiscretionary duties. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Dec appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit addressed two primary issues: the scope of judicial review over waiver eligibility and the conduct of the petitioner's counsel. First, the court analyzed whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the USCIS's denial. The court held that the relevant federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), unequivocally precludes judicial review of all agency decisions regarding waivers. The court reasoned that the statute commits the decision to the 'sole discretion' of the agency, and the requirement that the agency be 'satisfied' that extreme hardship exists makes the eligibility determination inherently discretionary and unreviewable. The court distinguished this from other immigration contexts where eligibility determinations are reviewable, noting that Congress specifically omitted language requiring executive 'satisfaction' in those other statutes. Furthermore, the court interpreted the phrase 'decision… regarding a waiver' broadly to encompass all decisions, including threshold eligibility determinations, and found that the statute's plain meaning leaves no room for judicial review of legal conclusions concerning eligibility. Second, the court addressed the petitioner's brief, which contained two non-existent case citations and a false quotation. The court found these to be clear signs of AI hallucinations. Although the attorney denied using AI and claimed she had copied the text from an old brief, the court noted that she could not explain the source of the errors. The court emphasized that trained lawyers have a duty to verify citations and quotations, regardless of the tools used. While the court declined to impose formal sanctions due to the attorney's acceptance of responsibility and lack of intent to deceive, it issued a stern admonishment to the bar regarding the importance of honesty and vigilance in legal filings.
The decision confirms that individuals denied waivers of inadmissibility cannot seek judicial review of the agency's eligibility determinations in federal district courts. This closes a potential avenue for challenging USCIS policy interpretations regarding waivers. The ruling also serves as a warning to immigration attorneys that the use of AI tools without rigorous verification of citations and quotations may lead to judicial admonishment, even if formal sanctions are not immediately imposed. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss, though the court noted that Dec could potentially seek review in a court of appeals if she faces a final removal order in the future.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download