Supreme Court rules: Federal government can revoke visas without judicial review, even for married couples with children.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court unanimously bars judicial review of visa revocations
- Decision affirms federal government’s discretionary power in immigration
- Case involved a U.S. citizen’s Palestinian husband accused of previous marriage fraud
- Ruling impacts families but allows for new visa petitions
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Authority in Visa Revocations
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot review the government’s decision to revoke an immigration visa. This landmark ruling in the case of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas reaffirms the federal government’s exclusive power over immigration matters, particularly in cases involving suspected fraud. The decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizes the broad discretion granted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in managing visa approvals and revocations.
The case centered on Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen who filed an immigration petition for her Palestinian husband, Ala’a Hamayel. Despite initially approving the petition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) later revoked it due to findings of a previous fraudulent marriage. This decision left Bouarfa, her husband, and their three U.S. citizen children in a precarious situation, highlighting the far-reaching consequences of visa revocations on families.
The Legal Battle and Its Implications
Bouarfa’s challenge to the visa revocation was met with resistance at every level of the judicial system. The Board of Immigration Appeals, a federal district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit all ruled against her. The Supreme Court’s decision to affirm these rulings underscores a critical aspect of U.S. immigration law: the federal government’s discretionary power in visa matters is nearly absolute.
Justice Jackson’s opinion clarified that the DHS secretary has the authority to revoke visa approval for “good and sufficient cause.” This broad discretion effectively shields the government’s decisions from judicial scrutiny, raising concerns about potential abuses of power and the lack of recourse for affected individuals.
Implications for Immigration Policy and Individual Rights
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas has significant implications for U.S. immigration policy and individual rights. By barring judicial review of visa revocations, the decision potentially leaves immigrants and their families vulnerable to administrative decisions that may be difficult to challenge or overturn.
However, Justice Jackson noted that individuals like Bouarfa are not left entirely without options. The ruling allows for the filing of new petitions, which could be subject to judicial review if denied. This provision offers a small glimmer of hope for those affected by visa revocations, although it potentially prolongs the immigration process and maintains uncertainty for families.
