Mukantagara v. Mullin.
No. 24-4071. 10/5/2026. D.Utah. Judge Phillips. Immigration and Nationality Act—Refugee Status—Removal Proceedings—Agency Discretionary Decisions—Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
October 5, 2026
In 2005, Mukantagara was admitted to the United States as a refugee, along with her son Shyaka as her minor dependent. In 2016, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that Mukantagara had participated in the Rwandan genocide, and it terminated her refugee status under 8 USC § 1157(c)(4) because she did not meet the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) definition of “refugee” when admitted into the United States. Mukantagara and her son were placed into removal proceedings. The immigration court found Mukantagara’s claim that she had not participated in the genocide credible and granted her asylum. It also ruled that it couldn’t review USCIS’s termination of Mukantagara’s refugee status. But the court denied asylum to Shyaka, ruling that he neither independently qualified for asylum nor qualified as Mukantagara’s dependent, because when Mukantagara applied for asylum in removal proceedings, Shyaka had aged out of eligibility.
Mukantagara and her son sued USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging its decision to terminate Mukantagara’s refugee status. On the government’s motion, the court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars courts from reviewing immigration agencies’ discretionary actions. It held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applied to 8 USC § 1157(c)(4), the provision for terminating refugee status. The Tenth Circuit subsequently determined that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) didn’t apply to USCIS’s termination of refugee status. The government petitioned for review en banc. While the Tenth Circuit was considering the petition, the Supreme Court issued Mullin v. Doe, 146 S. Ct. 2121 (2026), which involved similar INA jurisdiction-stripping questions. The Tenth Circuit vacated its first opinion and invited supplemental briefing and argument on Doe.
A relevant here, § 1252(a)(2)(B) removes jurisdiction from courts to review USCIS decisions or actions that are in USCIS’s discretion. Considering Doe and other Supreme Court cases, the Tenth Circuit concluded that termination of refugee status under § 1157(c)(4) involves two decisions. The first is whether an alien met the INA’s “refugee” definition when admitted into the United States. This is a mandatory, nondiscretionary decision. The second decision is discretionary, because USCIS may choose to maintain an alien’s refugee status even if that person didn’t meet the refugee definition when admitted into the country. Here, Mukantagara and her son challenged only the first decision, which is nondiscretionary, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply and does not bar district court review of USCIS’s termination of refugee status.
The judgment in favor of the government was reversed and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.