9th Circuit affirms dismissal of immigrant's lawsuit challenging USCIS denial of his green card application…
Gomes Ferreira v. Mullin
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit affirms dismissal of immigrant's lawsuit challenging USCIS denial of his green card application, finding courts lack jurisdiction and his other arguments were waived or unsupported.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling against Daniel Gomes Ferreira, who had challenged the denial of his immigration applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of his Form I-485 (adjustment of status) application under federal immigration law, and that Ferreira had failed to oppose the government's motion at the district court level. His remaining arguments about processing delays, due process, and a request to amend his complaint were rejected because they were either raised too late, lacked legal support, or were not properly pleaded.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects immigrants who apply for adjustment of status or other immigration benefits through USCIS and wish to challenge agency denials or delays in federal court. It also reinforces procedural rules that apply to all litigants in the Ninth Circuit regarding arguments and requests that must be raised at the trial court level before they can be considered on appeal.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Daniel Gomes Ferreira, represented by counsel, filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging how USCIS handled his immigration applications, including a Form I-485 (an application to become a lawful permanent resident) and Form I-539 applications (used to extend or change nonimmigrant status). The district court denied summary judgment to Ferreira and granted it to the government, and Ferreira appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On the central issue of jurisdiction, the government argued that a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), bars federal courts from reviewing USCIS decisions to deny adjustment of status applications. Ferreira did not respond to the government's cross-motion at the district court level, so the court treated it as unopposed and agreed it lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, Ferreira raised a new argument that the statute does not block courts from hearing challenges to general agency policies and procedures. The Ninth Circuit declined to address this argument because Ferreira had not raised it in the district court, and under a longstanding Ninth Circuit rule, arguments raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered. Ferreira also did not argue in his opening brief that any exception to this rule applied, so the argument was treated as waived. Regarding Ferreira's claims about USCIS delays in processing his Form I-539 applications, he argued the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law, and that the delays violated fairness and due process principles. The Ninth Circuit found these arguments were too conclusory and did not demonstrate any legal error by the district court. Ferreira also attempted to advance a procedural due process claim on appeal, but the court noted he cited no legal authority for it and the district court had correctly determined the claim was never actually pleaded in his complaint. Finally, Ferreira asked for the first time on appeal to be allowed to amend his complaint. The court rejected this request, citing the rule that such requests must be made at the district court level, and added that it was not persuaded the complaint could be saved by amendment in any event. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in full. The opinion is marked as not for publication and is not binding precedent under Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL GOMES FERREIRA, No. 25-1970 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 4:24-cv-01820-DMR v. MEMORANDUM* MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; JOSEPH EDLOW; CARRIE M. SELBY, Acting Associate Director, Service Center Operations Directorate, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 8, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. In this counseled appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Gomes Ferreira * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“Appellant”) challenges the district court’s denial of summary judgment to him and grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. Defendants-Appellees cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the district court lacks jurisdiction to review the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’s (“USCIS’s”) denial of Appellant’s Form I-485 application. Appellant did not respond to the cross-motion. The district court therefore considered the motion unopposed and correctly “conclude[d] that it lack[ed] jurisdiction to review USCIS’s denial of [his] [Form] I-485 application and related Form I-290B motions.” Appellant now argues that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “does not strip federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear collateral challenges to generally applicable policies and procedures.” But “[i]t is a long-standing rule in the Ninth Circuit that, generally, ‘we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.’” Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 868 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)). While this rule is subject to exceptions, id., Appellant did not argue in his opening brief that any apply here. And “arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.” Smith, 194 F.3d at 1052. Thus, we decline to address Appellant’s argument regarding jurisdiction. 2 25-1970 2. Appellant also challenges the district court’s analysis regarding his Form I-539 applications. He claims that USCIS’s “delay” in processing his Form I-539 applications “not only frustrated the statutory framework established by Congress for lawful status maintenance and adjustment of status, but it also undermined the principles of fairness and due process.” “As such,” he argues, “the agency’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” These conclusory arguments fail to show that the district court committed any legal error. 3. Appellant purports to advance a procedural due process claim. But his opening brief cites no authority in support of this claim, which the district court correctly determined was not pleaded in his complaint. 4. For the first time on appeal, Appellant seeks leave to amend his complaint. But when “a party does not ask the district court for leave to amend, the request on appeal to remand with instructions to permit amendment comes too late.” Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation modified). In any case, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that his complaint could be saved by amendment. AFFIRMED. 3 25-1970
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.