Skip to main content

Marc Nadeau v. Loretta E. Lynch

9th CircuitOctober 20, 2015No. 13-74162
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Silverman, Bybee, Watford
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, as immigration courts have discretionary authority over adjustment of status applications that is not subject to appellate review.

What This Ruling Means

**Marc Nadeau v. Loretta E. Lynch: Court Dismisses Employment Discrimination Case** Marc Nadeau filed a case against Loretta E. Lynch (who was serving as U.S. Attorney General at the time) claiming age discrimination in employment under federal law. The case appears to have involved both employment issues and immigration status matters, as Nadeau was seeking to adjust his immigration status while also pursuing age discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Nadeau's petition entirely, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The court explained that immigration courts have broad discretionary power over applications to adjust someone's immigration status, and federal appeals courts cannot review those decisions. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important limitation for workers who may face both employment discrimination and immigration issues simultaneously. When employment disputes become entangled with immigration matters, workers may find their options limited due to jurisdictional rules that prevent higher courts from reviewing immigration decisions. Workers in similar situations should understand that immigration-related aspects of their cases may not be appealable, even if they believe they've experienced workplace discrimination. This emphasizes the importance of seeking experienced legal counsel who understands both employment and immigration law when these issues overlap.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.