DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jonathan M. Lister (“Plaintiff”) asks the Court to “issue an order pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) — vacating the finding of inadmissibility under §212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’) lodged against [Plaintiff] by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (‘CBP’) at the Peace Bridge Port-of-Entry in Buffalo, New York on May 24, 2017….” (Dkt. 1 at 1). Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. 7). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint. As required at this stage of the proceeding, the Court treats Plaintiff’s material factual allegations as true. Plaintiff is a Canadian citizen. (Dkt. 1 at 1). On August 23, 2011, Plaintiff formed a Canadian Corporation, Ontario Corp. No. 002296455 d/b/a Lyte Beverages (“Lyte Beverages”), of which he is the sole shareholder/director. (Id. at 20). Lyte Beverages “produces and sells different flavors of electrolyte slush drinks,” which are “marketed and sold at varied venues, such as music festivals, golf courses, and select convenience stores throughout Canada.” (Id. at 21). Lyte Beverages has worked with a United States-based supplier, H&H Products, located in Orlando, Florida, to develop and produce drink flavors. (Id.). Between 2011 and 2017, Plaintiff periodically entered the United States to meet with his supplier. (Id.). Plaintiff decided to expand Lyte Beverages to the United States market and on March 17, 2017, he registered Lyte Beverages as a foreign corporation doing business in California. (Id. at 22). Plaintiff “determined that sampling his product at U.S. music festivals would be a good test of the market.” (Id. at 23). Plaintiff researched music festivals and decided that the SMF music festival, which was occurring in Tampa, Florida, in May 2017, would be “a good venue to test the local U.S. market while incurring minimal cost and maximizing exposure.” (Id.). Plaintiff “never had the intention of working or selling any Lyte Beverages products at the SMF vendor bo[o]th because he understood that he could not actively work at the vendor booth as a business visitor.” (Id. at 25). Plaintiff reached out to an acquaintance, Jack-David Bechthold (“Bechthold”), who is a United States citizen residing in Miami. (Id.). Plaintiff hired Bechthold to work at SMF on behalf of Lyte Beverages, and Bechthold in turn recruited three additional United States citizens as team members. (Id.). Plaintiff thereafter executed a contract with SMF for a vendor booth pursuant to which Lyte Beverages was permitted to sell its electrolyte slush drinks to SMF patrons, staff, and personnel. (Id. at 26). “Along with the four local workers, [Plaintiff] also included himself on the Staff List because he is the owner of Lyte Beverages as required by the contract, as well as to gain access to the show as a vendor.” (Id.). On May 24, 2017, “[a] few days prior to SMF,” Plaintiff “presented himself for inspection into the U.S. as a business visitor (B-1) at the Peace Bridge Port-of-Entry in Buffalo, New York.” (Id. at 29). At primary inspection, Plaintiff was questioned about the purpose of his visit to the United States and “disclosed that he was intending to travel to Orlando, Florida to meet with his supplier…and to attend the SMF in Tampa, Florida on May 27, 2017 and May 28, 2017.” (Id. at 31). Plaintiff also informed the CBP officer that at SMF, he intended to “sample his newest slush mix products.” (Id. at 32). Plaintiff was referred to secondary inspection. (Id.). During secondary inspection, Plaintiff “further disclosed that he would also be selling his slush mix product at the SMF.” (Id. at 32). When providing this information, Plaintiff “failed to distinguish between himself as an individual and his Canadian company” because “[a]s the sole owner of Lyte Beverages, [Plaintiff] was used to referring to himself and his company synonymously….” (Id. at 32). CBP officers subsequently determined that Plaintiff was inadmissible under §212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the INA1, “because he had made a material misrepresentation regarding the true purpose of his visit to the U.S.” — namely, “by omitting the fact that he would be selling his product at SMF at primary inspection.” (Id. at 35). “CBP…issue[d] an expedited order of removal on the same day” under INA §235(b)(1). (Id. at
