Danuta Dec, a Polish citizen, sought a waiver of inadmissibility after being unlawfully present in the U.S. for over a year, which triggered a 10-year bar. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her waiver application because her sister, not her deceased mother, was the qualifying relative for her visa petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(l). Dec then challenged the denial in federal court, seeking declaratory relief and arguing the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Chief Judge Brennan wrote that waiver eligibility determinations are 'inherently discretionary and unreviewable' because the statute requires the agency to be 'satisfied' that refusing admission would cause extreme hardship. The court distinguished Supreme Court precedent in Wilkinson v. Garland, noting that Congress 'chose to retain similar language' requiring executive satisfaction in waiver provisions while omitting it elsewhere. The panel also found that statutory language stating 'No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by [the agency] regarding a waiver' broadly strips courts of authority over all waiver-related determinations.
The Northern District of Illinois had dismissed Dec's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Dec had argued that § 1154(l) imposed nondiscretionary duties on USCIS and that the Administrative Procedure Act's presumption of reviewability applied, but the appeals court rejected both theories.
Beyond the jurisdictional ruling, the panel issued a rare public admonishment of Dec's counsel for including fake citations and quotes that appeared AI-generated in her brief. Though the attorney denied using artificial intelligence and took responsibility for the errors, Chief Judge Brennan warned that such violations 'result in confusion and time wasted' and reminded lawyers of their duty not to 'knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote, or miscite facts or authorities.' The decision reflects growing judicial concern over AI-generated legal content and establishes that immigration waiver denials remain largely beyond court oversight.