(Id. at 1.) Nonetheless, USCIS still denied his application based on an administrative decision in Matter of Sosa Ventura, 25 I. & N. Dec. 391 (BIA 2010), and an Eleventh Circuit decision in Serrano v. U.S. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir.2011). On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff initiated the current federal action in this Court.

We review the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, and in doing so, we view all allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Perez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 774 F.3d 960, 964 (11th Cir. 2014). We review issues involving statutory interpretation de novo. Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2011). Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may review an agency's interpretation of a statute and set aside an agency action or conclusion that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that a district court may exercise jurisdiction over a mandamus claim “only if (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Serrano v. United States AG, 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Cash, 327 F.3d at 1258). “The party seeking mandamus has the burden of demonstrating that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.”

First, the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their challenges to the EUA-statute actions (Counts I, III, IV, and VI in part) and the executive orders (Counts II and the VI's other part). Second, the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief (Count V) because the plaintiffs have not shown that their "right to the writ is clear and indisputable." Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). And third, reaching the merits would require the Court to write an impermissible advisory opinion.

Motion at 13-14. In Serrano v. Mayorkas, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011), however, the Eleventh Circuit held that federal courts have jurisdiction to provide declaratory relief under the APA. See Serrano, 655 F.3d at 1264 ("Serrano has sued under the APA, which provides an adequate remedy.") Accordingly, the Court also has jurisdiction under the APA.

There is a split of authority on the issue. Compare Sanchez v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 967 F.3d 242, 251–52 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a noncitizen who receives TPS is not deemed "inspected and admitted"), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-315 (U.S. Sept. 10, 2020), and Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (same), with Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that, because a TPS recipient must be treated as a nonimmigrant for adjustment purposes, she is deemed to have met all requirements for nonimmigrant status, including inspection and admission), and Flores v. USCIS, 718 F.3d 548, 552–53 (6th Cir. 2013) (same). A.

” Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011).

To issue a writ of mandamus, (1) the plaintiff must have a clear legal right to the relief, (2) the agencies or officers and employees must have a non-discretionary duty to act, and (3) there must be no other adequate remedy available. Serrano v. United States Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.

Mandamus, meanwhile, "is an extraordinary remedy available only in the clearest and most compelling of cases." Serrano v. United States Att'y Gen. , 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). To obtain mandamus relief, a plaintiff must show that (1) he has a clear right to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.

Id. (citing Flores, 718 F.3d at 552 ); cf.United States v. Orellana, 405 F.3d 360, at 361, 366 (5th Cir.2005) (although involving the effect of TPS on a criminal indictment for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, stating that “[a]s a result [of having status as a TPS beneficiary], Orellana was granted protection from removal, authorized to seek employment, and given the ability to apply for adjustment of status as if he were in lawful non-immigrant status ”) (emphasis added).Defendants also argue that the Court should follow the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Serrano v. United States Attorney General, 655 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.2011), which reached a contrary conclusion when interpreting §§ 1254a(f)(4) and 1255(a). This Court, however, agrees with Flores,Medina, and Ramirez that Serrano is distinguishable on its facts, particularly because the plaintiff in that case, unlike the Plaintiff here, failed to honestly disclose that he originally entered the country illegally without inspection.