A divided Tenth Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a suit challenging USCIS's termination of a refugee's status, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of the agency's determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4) that a person was not a refugee at the time of admission. The earlier panel opinion for the plaintiffs had been vacated after the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, and the parties were asked to brief that decision.
The majority reasoned that terminating refugee status is a two-step process: the first step, whether the person was a refugee at admission, is mandatory and nondiscretionary, while the second, whether to terminate anyway, is discretionary. The jurisdictional bar reaches only the discretionary step. The court distinguished Patel, Bouarfa, and Doe, characterizing the refugee determination as a "preliminary" rather than "subsidiary" predicate. It acknowledged that this creates a split with the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.
The full text of Mukantagara v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111520406.pdf