Anqi Liu v. Markwayne Mullin

── Anqi Liu v. Markwayne Mullin ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1652 DEVON NOBLES and ANQI LIU, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:24-cv-09473 — Manish S. Shah, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JANUARY 29, 2026 — DECIDED JUNE 5, 2026 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, LEE, and KOLAR, Circuit Judges. KOLAR, Circuit Judge. American citizen Devon Nobles is married to Anqi Liu, a Chinese citizen present in the United States with H-1B status, allowing her to work in the country for a limited time. Nobles twice filed Form I-130 petitions seeking to classify Liu as his immediate relative under federal immigration law, a prerequisite to Liu’s securing a green card based on their spousal relationship. But the United States Cit- izenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rejected those 2 No. 25-1652 petitions under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This rejection was premised on the government’s determination that Nobles—who was previously convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving a minor—failed to show he “poses no risk to” Liu under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). With the Adam Walsh Act, Congress entrusted that no-risk determination to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s “sole and unreviewable discretion.” Id. Nobles and Liu sued, alleging 13 counts arising from the de- nials. The district court dismissed all but one count for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the lone reviewable count for fail- ure to state a claim. Because we agree that plaintiffs’ claims either are not reviewable in this posture or fail on the merits, we affirm. I. Background Before turning to the allegations and procedural back- ground, we start with the applicable statutory framework. A. Statutory Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides: Except as provided in clause (viii), any citizen of the United States claiming that an alien is enti- tled … to an immediate relative status under section 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) of this title may file a pe- tition with the Attorney General for such classi- fication. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i). The INA defines “immediate rela- tives” to include “the children, spouses, and parents of a citi- zen of the United States.” Id. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). No. 25-1652 3 When a petition is filed, “the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is an im- mediate relative … approve the petition.” Id. § 1154(b). Once approved, the immediate-relative non-citizen may remain in the United States notwithstanding other statutory limits. E.g., id. § 1151(b). But with the Adam Walsh Act, Congress imposed an ad- ditional restriction on that process. The Act added a provision stating that section 1154(a)(1)(A)(i) (the relative-status-adjust- ment provision): (I) … shall not apply to a citizen of the United States who has been convicted of a specified of- fense against a minor, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s sole and un- reviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk to the alien with respect to whom a petition described in clause (i) is filed. (II) For purposes of subclause (I), the term “specified offense against a