This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NotAGenious (talk | contribs) at 14:28, 12 December 2024 (new article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:28, 12 December 2024 by NotAGenious (talk | contribs) (new article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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 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. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Where §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies, then, 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 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.
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.
- "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)