Mukantagara v. Mullin: Seeking Judicial Review of Terminations of Refugee Status

IRAP and Berger Montague, PC submitted an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mukantagara v. Mullin, arguing that USCIS terminations of refugee status are reviewable by federal courts.

Background

Agnes Mukantagara is a refugee from Rwanda who was admitted to the United States as a refugee along with her derivative minor son, Ebenezer Shyaka. Many years later, USCIS issued Ms. Mukantagara a Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) her refugee status alleging that she had participated in the Rwandan Genocide and so was ineligible for refugee status at the time she was admitted to the United States. Ms. Mukantagara denied the allegations, but USCIS terminated her refugee status, along with the status of her son, and referred them both to removal proceedings. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge granted Ms. Mukantagara asylum, finding that the government’s allegations of participation in the Rwandan Genocide were unsubstantiated. But Mr. Shyaka was ordered removed because he was now over the age of twenty-one, unable to benefit from his mother’s asylum grant, and did not have an independent claim to asylum. Ms. Mukantagara and Mr. Shyaka filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, challenging USCIS’s termination of their refugee status as unlawful. The District Court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act barred judicial review of a refugee termination. Ms. Mukantagara appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit initially ruled in her favor, finding that district courts could review whether USCIS had correctly determined that a refugee had not met the requirements for refugee status. After the government petitioned for rehearing, the panel vacated their decision and ordered rehearing, seeking supplemental briefing on the availability of judicial review of determinations that a refugee did not meet the definition at the time of admission and the ability of appellate courts to examine USCIS’s record on refugee termination when evaluating petitions for review of immigration court decisions. 

Our brief

By law, termination of refugee status can occur only if USCIS finds that a refugee did not meet the requirements for refugee status when they were admitted. We argue that judicial review is available over this determination.  Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts can review any agency action that is final as long as there is no other adequate remedy at law. As explained in the brief, USCIS’s determination that an individual was not a refugee at the time that they were admitted to the United States is final agency action. No other remedy exists, because immigration judges do not have the authority to overturn USCIS’s termination of refugee status, nor do refugees have the ability to challenge their refugee termination before an appellate court at the completion of their removal proceedings.

Case status

After the government sought rehearing in Mukantagara, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit requested supplemental briefs from the parties and again heard oral arguments on August 17, 2026. 

• August 4, 2026: IRAP’s Amicus brief is filed.
• August 17, 2026: The Tenth Circuit hears oral arguments.