| Revision as of 23:57, 15 December 2024 editPath2space (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,325 edits +ProceedingsTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:58, 15 December 2024 edit undoPath2space (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,325 editsm →Background: wikilinksTag: Visual editNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| == Background == | == Background == | ||
| In 2014, plaintiff Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa application for permanent legal residence (Green Card) for her husband, Hamayel. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved only to revoke the approval later, stating that her husband had entered into a previous |
In 2014, plaintiff Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa application for permanent legal residence (]) for her husband, Hamayel. The ] approved only to revoke the approval later, stating that her husband had entered into a previous “]” to stay in the United States. The ] affirmed the revocation of the visa application for permanent legal residence.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Robinson |first=Kimberly Strawbridge |date=October 15, 2024 |title=Justices Unlikely to Let Courts Second-Guess Visa Rulings |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-unlikely-to-allow-courts-to-second-guess-visa-decisions |access-date=December 15, 2024 |work=]}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> | ||
| == Proceedings == | == Proceedings == | ||
| Bouarfa challenged the agency’s revocation as arbitrary and capricious in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that it has no jurisdiction over the agency’s revocation under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars federal courts from reviewing certain discretionary agency decisions. | Bouarfa challenged the agency’s revocation as arbitrary and capricious in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that it has no jurisdiction over the agency’s revocation under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars federal courts from reviewing certain discretionary agency decisions. | ||
Revision as of 23:58, 15 December 2024
2024 United States Supreme Court case| Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued October 15, 2024 Decided December 10, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Bourafa v. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. |
| Docket no. | 23–583 |
| Citations | 604 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Federal District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Questions presented | |
| May a visa petitioner obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria? | |
| Holding | |
| In §1155, Congress granted the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition "at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause." Such a revocation is thus "in the discretion of" the agency under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, where §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies, it bars judicial review of the Secretary’s revocation under §1155. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Jackson, joined by unanimous |
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about whether an individual can obtain judicial review regarding a revoked visa petition based on non-discretionary criteria. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, stating that "revocation of an approved visa petition under §1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions ‘in the discretion of’ the agency." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the court's unanimous opinion.
Background
In 2014, plaintiff Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa application for permanent legal residence (Green Card) for her husband, Hamayel. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved only to revoke the approval later, stating that her husband had entered into a previous “sham marriage” to stay in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the revocation of the visa application for permanent legal residence.
Proceedings
Bouarfa challenged the agency’s revocation as arbitrary and capricious in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that it has no jurisdiction over the agency’s revocation under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which bars federal courts from reviewing certain discretionary agency decisions.
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed.
Reactions
Before the decision, the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the decision, stating that it could have "potentially devastating consequences for noncitizens and their families" and that "in some situations, federal courts would be precluded from reviewing even a blatant constitutional violation—such as if the agency based its decision on racial stereotyping".
References
- ^ "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. ___ (2024)". Justia Law. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ^ Robinson, Kimberly Strawbridge (October 15, 2024). "Justices Unlikely to Let Courts Second-Guess Visa Rulings". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
- "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
External links
- Text of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. ___ (2024) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia Supreme Court (slip opinion)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |