Jump to content

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Argued October 15, 2024
Decided December 10, 2024
Full case nameBourafa v. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.
Docket no.23–583
Citations604 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorFederal 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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
MajorityJackson, 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.[1]

Reactions

[edit]

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".[2]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. ___ (2024)". Justia Law. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
  2. ^ "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
[edit]