Diego Fernando Echiverri Mancilla v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

── Diego Fernando Echiverri Mancilla v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13520 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13520 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DIEGO FERNANDO ECHIVERRI MANCILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, TEXAS SERVICE CENTER, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cv-01065-PGB-DCI ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13520 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13520 Diego Fernando Echiverri Mancilla appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of his Form I- 140 petition for Alien Worker status under the Administrative Pro- cedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court correctly dismissed the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but because that dismissal should have been without prejudice, we modify and affirm its order of dismissal. I. BACKGROUND In 2024, Echiverri Mancilla, a citizen of Colombia, filed an amended complaint requesting review of the denial of his Form I- 140 petition for Alien Worker status based on the finding that he did not meet the three-part test established in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I. & N. Dec. 884 (USCIS AAO 2016). He contended that the dis- trict court had jurisdiction to review the denial under the Adminis- trative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because the government did not provide adequate explanation for its denial. The govern- ment moved to dismiss Echiverri Mancilla’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. It applied Brasil v. Sec’y Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 28 F.4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022), and Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6 (2024), in concluding that the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), barred judicial review of the discretionary decision to deny Echiverri Mancilla’s Form I-140, and it entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. USCA11 Case: 25-13520 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-13520 Opinion of the Court 3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Bouarfa v. Sec’y, Dept. of Homeland Sec., 75 F.4th 1157, 1161 (11th Cir. 2023). III. DISCUSSION Echiverri Mancilla argues that the government did not ade- quately explain why it found he did not meet the second and third parts of the three-part Dhanasar test. He argues that he did not seek review of a discretionary decision and that the district court erro- neously dismissed his amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” an agency decisio