Case Explained: DEVON NOBLES and ANQI LIU v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims brought by American citizen Devon Nobles and his Chinese spouse, Anqi Liu, challenging the denial of Nobles’s Form I-130 petitions to classify Liu as an immediate relative. The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts I through III and V through XIII, and affirmed the dismissal of Count IV on the merits. The court’s decision rests on the plain text of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security “sole and unreviewable discretion” to determine whether a citizen convicted of a specified offense against a minor poses no risk to an alien beneficiary. The court interpreted the statutory term “determines” to encompass both the final decision and the underlying processes, evidentiary standards, and fact-finding methods used by USCIS to reach that decision. Consequently, challenges to the agency’s application of the “beyond any reasonable doubt” standard or its failure to consider specific evidence are barred because they target the discretionary determination itself. Additionally, regarding constitutional claims, the court applied 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and (D), ruling that while the INA preserves judicial review for legal and constitutional questions, such claims must be raised exclusively within a petition for review of a final order of removal. Because Liu is not currently in removal proceedings and Nobles, as a citizen, cannot be removed, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear these claims outside that specific procedural channel. On the merits of Count IV, the court found that the statute unambiguously applies to adult beneficiaries as well as minors, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the Adam Walsh Act is limited only to cases involving minor beneficiaries. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is terminated without a resolution on the substantive merits of their statutory or constitutional arguments. The denial of the immigration petitions by USCIS stands, and the plaintiffs are precluded from seeking judicial review in federal district court or the Court of Appeals unless and until they are placed in removal proceedings, at which point they may attempt to raise these claims via a petition for review of a final removal order. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.