The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that federal courts cannot review decisions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to revoke previously approved visa petitions, a decision that could significantly strengthen executive power over immigration.
The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, establishes that visa revocations fall into the category of discretionary actions under immigration law, shielding them from judicial review.
The case centered on Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose visa petition for her noncitizen husband was initially approved by DHS but later revoked after the agency determined he had previously entered into a "sham marriage" to evade immigration laws. Such marriages permanently bar individuals from legal status in the U.S.
Bouarfa challenged the revocation in federal court, but both the district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the decision was unreviewable. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings, as Newsmax reports.
Justice Jackson emphasized that Congress, through 8 U.S.C. §1154(b), granted DHS "broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition at any time, for what it deems to be good and sufficient cause." She also noted that under Section 1252 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, judicial review of such revocations is explicitly barred.
The Court clarified that while initial visa denials may be subject to judicial scrutiny, revocations are considered discretionary, even when based on facts that would have mandated an initial denial.
As Boundless points out, ruling has implications for executive power over immigration, particularly as former President Donald Trump has vowed sweeping immigration reforms. "Under the Court's decision, DHS would have broad, unreviewable power to revoke visas as part of these initiatives, with limited court oversight," explains the outlet.
Immigration advocates consulted by Boundless warn that the decision could lead to a surge in visa revocations, particularly during aggressive enforcement periods as the one that is expected come January.
While Justice Jackson pointed out that visa petitioners retain the option to file new applications and that courts may intervene in cases of constitutional violations, critics argue these safeguards may offer limited protection in practice.
The ruling is expected to influence numerous pending and future immigration cases where DHS acts on disqualifying information after initial visa approvals.
© 2024 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
