Seventh Circuit Upholds USCIS Denial of I-130 Petition Under Adam Walsh Act

Devon Nobles, a U.S. citizen, is married to Anqi Liu, a Chinese national lawfully present in the U.S. on H-1B visa status. Nobles has a prior 2013 conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor. Liu was aware of the conviction when they married in 2015.

Nobles filed two Form I-130 petitions to classify Liu as his immediate relative (a prerequisite for her to adjust status and obtain a green card). USCIS denied both petitions under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The denials were based on Nobles’ failure to demonstrate that he “poses no risk” to Liu. USCIS applied a “beyond any reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard, which plaintiffs challenged as overly stringent and improperly adopted.

Plaintiffs (Nobles and Liu) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, bringing 13 claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): four statutory challenges to USCIS’s authority, processes, and evidentiary standards, and nine constitutional claims. The district court (Judge Manish S. Shah) dismissed most claims for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining statutory claim for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Digression/Trivia: The 7th Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) covers the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin and has appellate jurisdiction over the federal district courts in these states. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is one of the 13 regional federal appellate courts in the United States. It was established in 1891 under the Evarts Act (Judiciary Act of 1891) and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

Issues

The primary issues were:

• Whether the Adam Walsh Act’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” language, combined with INA jurisdiction-stripping provisions (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (D)), bars judicial review of challenges to USCIS’s no-risk determination, including the methods, evidentiary standards, and procedures used (statutory and constitutional claims).
• Whether the Adam Walsh Act’s no-risk requirement applies only to minor beneficiaries or to adult beneficiaries (such as Liu) as well.
• Related questions on the reviewability of agency actions under the APA when Congress has committed a decision to unreviewable discretion.

Decision

On June 5, 2026, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Kolar (joined by Judges Ripple and Lee), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal in full (No. 25-1652).

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over most statutory claims (Counts I–III) and all constitutional claims because Congress clearly insulated the Secretary’s (and USCIS’s) no-risk determination, including the processes and standards used to reach it, from judicial review outside of a petition for review of a final removal order. It further held that the one reviewable statutory claim (Count IV) failed on the merits, as the Adam Walsh Act unambiguously applies to beneficiaries of any age, not just minors. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims.

Analysis of the Decision

The Seventh Circuit emphasized strict adherence to congressional limits on judicial review in immigration matters. Key takeaways:

• The court interpreted the Adam Walsh Act’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” language together with INA § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) as barring not only the ultimate “no-risk” decision but also challenges to the agency’s methods, evidentiary standards (e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt”), and procedural fairness. Constitutional claims were similarly channeled exclusively to removal proceedings.
• The opinion focused on statutory text, rejecting arguments that APA review remained available for “legal” or “ultra vires” questions outside removal proceedings.
• The court confirmed the no-risk requirement applies regardless of the beneficiary’s age, rejecting a narrow interpretation limited to child beneficiaries.
• This decision reinforces significant deference to executive discretion in sensitive family-based immigration cases involving sex-offense convictions. It limits district court APA challenges in this context and aligns with (or expands on) approaches in other circuits. Petitioners in similar situations may need to pursue relief through removal proceedings or legislative avenues rather than direct civil suits. The ruling highlights the high bar for judicial intervention when Congress uses clear “unreviewable discretion” language.

Public Access Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/25-1652/25-1652-2026-06-05.html

Citation: Nobles v. Mullin, No. 25-1652, ___ F.4th ___ (7th Cir. June 5, 2026) (or Anqi Liu v. Markwayne Mullin, No. 25-1652 (7th Cir. June 5, 2026)).