Reported / Citable
Background
Mary Fe Moreno Rivera, a Venezuelan citizen, was admitted to the United States in B-2 nonimmigrant status in 2018 and later obtained Temporary Protected Status. She applied for asylum in 2019, attended an interview with the Houston Asylum Office in August 2025, and responded to a notice of intent to deny her application.
USCIS ultimately denied the application without referring Moreno Rivera to immigration court because she held TPS at the time. She sued USCIS officials under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking timely adjudication and challenging the denial as legally erroneous. The defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed as moot Moreno Rivera’s claim seeking to compel adjudication. USCIS had already adjudicated and denied her asylum application, and she conceded that she no longer needed an order requiring an initial decision. The requested relief therefore presented no live controversy.
The court dismissed the APA challenge to the merits of the denial without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Kewayfati v. Bondi, the court held that USCIS’s denial was not final agency action because Moreno Rivera held TPS when the application was denied, USCIS did not refer her to immigration court, and defensive asylum remained available in future removal proceedings. The announced termination of Venezuela’s TPS designation did not materially distinguish her case because she still had TPS at the time of denial.
Because it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision, the court did not reach the merits of the APA claims. It also denied leave to amend as futile.
Key Takeaways
- A request to compel USCIS to adjudicate an asylum application becomes moot once the agency issues its decision.
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, denial of an affirmative asylum application without referral to immigration court was not final agency action where the applicant held TPS at the time of denial.
- The APA claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court declined to address whether USCIS’s denial was substantively lawful.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the jurisdictional obstacles TPS holders may face when seeking immediate APA review of a denied affirmative asylum application. Even an announced future termination of TPS did not make the denial final where TPS remained effective when USCIS acted and defensive asylum could remain available in later removal proceedings.