 |
|
It is not a 'checks and balances' issue
Posted on: April 29, 2025 at 14:34:25 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
144790
Member For:
20.81 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
so sayeth a unanimous SCOTUS in December...
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bouarfa-v-mayorkas/
Holding: Revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. " 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions "in the discretion of" the agency.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Jackson on December 10, 2024.
https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confirms-no-judicial-review-for-revoked-visas/
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found appeals to revoked visas cannot be heard in federal courts. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a discretionary agency, their decisions are not subject to judicial review for revoked visas. This affirms a July 2023 Eleventh Circuit court decision finding the same.
The Department of Homeland Security secretary is given broad authority, by Congress, to revoke a visa for any reason at any time. As such, there is no legal basis for judicial review of revoked visas. The case emphasizes an important distinction in immigration law: some decisions are mandatory, requiring officials to follow specific rules, while others are discretionary, allowing officials the freedom to decide. The Court determined that visa revocations fall into the discretionary category, meaning these decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.
In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion. USCIS may choose to revoke previously approved visa petitions at any time, for any reason the Secretary and USCIS determine is a “good and sufficient cause.” In her written opinion on behalf of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson clarifies that Congress did not outline specific criteria or conditions for the Secretary or USCIS to follow when determining if a visa should be revoked. Consequently, their authority is not constrained by any defined limitations.
The ruling could have a big impact on immigrants trying to get permanent legal status in the U.S. Critics say it makes it harder to hold immigration agencies responsible and gives them more freedom to act without much supervision. Legal experts believe this decision shows a growing pattern of courts allowing the executive branch to have more control over immigration decisions.
The timing of the ruling is noteworthy, as President-elect Trump has vowed sweeping immigration reforms. Trump has pledged to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and reinstate his travel ban on select countries. Under the Court’s decision, DHS would hold broad, unchecked authority to revoke visas as part of these efforts, with minimal judicial oversight
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bouarfa-v-mayorkas/
Holding: Revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. " 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions "in the discretion of" the agency.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Jackson on December 10, 2024.
https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confirms-no-judicial-review-for-revoked-visas/
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found appeals to revoked visas cannot be heard in federal courts. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a discretionary agency, their decisions are not subject to judicial review for revoked visas. This affirms a July 2023 Eleventh Circuit court decision finding the same.
The Department of Homeland Security secretary is given broad authority, by Congress, to revoke a visa for any reason at any time. As such, there is no legal basis for judicial review of revoked visas. The case emphasizes an important distinction in immigration law: some decisions are mandatory, requiring officials to follow specific rules, while others are discretionary, allowing officials the freedom to decide. The Court determined that visa revocations fall into the discretionary category, meaning these decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.
In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion. USCIS may choose to revoke previously approved visa petitions at any time, for any reason the Secretary and USCIS determine is a “good and sufficient cause.” In her written opinion on behalf of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson clarifies that Congress did not outline specific criteria or conditions for the Secretary or USCIS to follow when determining if a visa should be revoked. Consequently, their authority is not constrained by any defined limitations.
The ruling could have a big impact on immigrants trying to get permanent legal status in the U.S. Critics say it makes it harder to hold immigration agencies responsible and gives them more freedom to act without much supervision. Legal experts believe this decision shows a growing pattern of courts allowing the executive branch to have more control over immigration decisions.
The timing of the ruling is noteworthy, as President-elect Trump has vowed sweeping immigration reforms. Trump has pledged to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history” and reinstate his travel ban on select countries. Under the Court’s decision, DHS would hold broad, unchecked authority to revoke visas as part of these efforts, with minimal judicial oversight
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
It is not a 'checks and balances' issue - Spanky KU - 4/29 14:34:25