The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review visa revocations in instances of fraudulent marriages for immigration purposes. This indicates that the Department of Homeland Security possesses ultimate authority in these matters.
The unanimous ruling clarified that courts may examine initial visa denials; however, they lack the authority to intervene once the Department of Homeland Security rescinds an approved visa.
The decision illustrates the significant authority the DHS wields over visas, potentially influencing the enforcement of immigration laws, including President Trump’s proposals to amend immigration legislation and increase deportations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden, authored the court’s opinion and characterized the decision as “a quintessential grant of discretion” to the DHS. “Congress did not establish explicit criteria or conditions to constrain this authority, nor did it specify how or when the Secretary must act.” The majority stated, “Context underscores the discretionary nature of §1155,” the statute permitting the government to revoke approved visa petitions.
The ruling stated, “The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems to be ‘good and sufficient cause,’” with a unanimous decision of 9-0.
Amina Bouarfa, a citizen of the United States, was the plaintiff in the case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The Department of Homeland Security revoked her husband’s visa upon discovering his prior involvement in a fraudulent marriage, rendering him permanently ineligible for legal residency.
The justices concentrated on a statute that permits judicial review solely of initial visa denials during oral arguments. This indicated that Congress intended to endorse the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to annul visas.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated that Bouarfa’s husband may reapply for a visa and potentially contest a denial in court. The Examiner reported that the petitioner’s attorney, Samir Deger-Sen, stated that resuming the process results in significant delays and complications for families.
Immigration advocates asserted that the decision could exacerbate the difficulties faced by immigrants contending with an already overwhelmed immigration system, which has a backlog exceeding 3 million cases.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents argued that restricting judicial oversight could permit constitutional violations, such as racial bias, to remain unaddressed. No evidence of racial bias or animus was found in the Bouarfa case.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is permitted to continue utilizing a Seattle airport for chartered deportation flights. This is favorable news for the Trump administration poised to assume office.
Advertisement
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals annulled a 2019 local executive order that sought to contravene President Trump’s immigration policies. The court ruled that King County, Washington, violated its contract by prohibiting deportations from King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field.
The ruling was perceived as favorable for the Trump administration, which is poised to assume office. The president-elect has vowed to initiate a large-scale deportation campaign upon taking office; however, leftist open borders organizations are expected to contest his executive directives.
Tom Homan, Trump’s newly appointed “border czar,” a former Border Patrol agent and supervisor with decades of experience, and who served as acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director during Trump’s initial term, has vowed to implement the president-elect’s deportation directives, even if it necessitates the arrest of Democratic officials attempting to obstruct him.
“However, the mayor of Denver and I concur on one matter.” He is prepared to enter incarceration. “I will incarcerate him,” Homan informed Fox News host Sean Hannity earlier this month.Title 8, United States Code 1324 – AAA constitutes legislation. It states that concealing illegal immigrants from immigration authorities constitutes a criminal offense. Obstructing a federal law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties is also illegal.
