The Tenth Circuit has determined that federal courts have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review USCIS’s decision to terminate refugee status.
“We first consider 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4), the provision under which USCIS terminated Mukantagara’s refugee status. As we interpret it, that provision provides a two-step process. At step one, USCIS evaluates whether the noncitizen meets the statute’s eligibility requirement of not being a ‘refugee’ when admitted into the United States. At step two, USCIS has discretion to terminate the refugee status of any noncitizen who is eligible at step one. After that, we consider whether the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers a district court’s review of USCIS’s eligibility determination at the above step one. We conclude that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies only to discretionary actions and that the eligibility determination under § 1157(c)(4)’s step one is not discretionary.”
“When the INA directs immigration agencies to assess statutory eligibility criteri in a first step before exercising discretion in a second, the first step is not discretionary. Section 1157(c)(4)’s first step requires the agency to assess eligibility before deciding to terminate refugee status. Section 1157(c)(4)’s first step is nondiscretionary.“
The full text of Mukantagara v. Noem can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111366275.pdf