Tenth Circuit Vacates Judgment and Orders Supplemental Briefing on Reviewability of Refugee Termination

The Tenth Circuit has granted the government's request for panel rehearing and vacated its own January 2026 judgment in a case challenging USCIS's determination that two Rwandan refugees were not actually refugees at the time of their admission, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Mullin v. Doe.

The Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether Mullin v. Doe's statement that unreviewable final agency action renders subsidiary determinations unreviewable calls into question the panel's prior holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) permits judicial review of USCIS's underlying refugee-status determination, and whether any avenue for review of that determination remains available. The court also asked the government to clarify an apparent inconsistency in its litigation positions on whether the termination decision can be considered as part of a petition for review.

The full text of Mukantagara v. Mullin can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111468891.pdf

Tenth Circuit Finds APA Jurisdiction to Review USCIS Decision to Terminate Refugee Status

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

Tenth Circuit Finds Jurisdiction to Review Refugee Termination

The Tenth Circuit has determined that a federal district court has jurisdiction to review USCIS’s decision to terminate refugee status.

The full text of Mukantagara v. DHS can be found here:

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110860407.pdf