The American Immigration Council does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. We aim to provide an analysis of the election’s impact on the U.S. immigration system.
The Supreme Court recently blocked a new avenue for judicial review of decisions by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) judges. In Bualfa v. Mayorkas, the court held that the decision to revoke the prior approval of an immigrant visa application filed by a U.S. citizen on behalf of a non-citizen spouse was not intended by Congress to place the revocation decision entirely within the agency’s discretion. Therefore, the court held that it could not be reconsidered. . The revocation law states that the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke the approval of family-based or employment-based immigrant visa applications “at any time and for what is deemed to be good and sufficient cause.” However, federal district court jurisdiction exists to review denials of immigrant visa applications.
Before the Supreme Court issued its Bualfa decision, most federal circuit courts had already issued decisions prohibiting district courts from reviewing cancellations of immigrant visa applications. However, some courts provided exceptions where the revocation was based on purely legal or mixed legal issues. fact. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the language of the statute was “just and sufficient cause,” and judicial review was not permitted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California, Arizona, Washington, and six other states). and two U.S. territories). Objective standards that courts can consider. Because the Cancellation Act also applies to non-U.S. citizen immigrant visa applications filed on behalf of a spouse, the court will require a federal district court to revoke all decisions by USCIS regarding immigrant visa application cancellations to cancel immigrant visa applications. It is likely that the Supreme Court’s decision prohibiting review will be applied.
decision
Bualfa, a U.S. citizen, had received approval from U.S. immigration authorities for an immigrant visa application she submitted on behalf of her spouse. However, USCIS later revoked this recognition, claiming that the noncitizen spouse’s previous marriage was a “sham” (entered into for the purpose of circumventing U.S. immigration law). Unable to overcome the USCIS notice of intent to cancel and have the cancellation removed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, Bualfa filed suit in federal district court. She argued that USCIS’ revocation was “arbitrary and capricious” because it lacked sufficient evidence of a “sham” marriage. District Court Grants Government’s Motion to Dismiss, Eleventh Circuit Holds That Immigration and Nationality Act Requires District Court to Review USCIS’ Decision to Revoke Petition Approval as a “decision or action” as Congress intended. He admitted it because it was prohibited. It is at the discretion of the agency.
Ms. Bualfa argued that because USCIS is required to deny immigrant visa applications when a “sham” marriage is found, USCIS must reverse the non-discretionary decision that can be reviewed by a district court. However, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Circuit held that the provisions of the Cancellation Act clearly give the Secretary discretion whether to revoke the petition, even if the Supreme Court later determines that USCIS improperly granted the petition. agreed. The Supreme Court concluded that the requirements for denying immigrant visa applications are not carried over into the Cancellation Act.
More far-reaching effects
The Supreme Court also effectively foreclosed without truly considering whether jurisdiction should apply when a non-citizen is not in removal proceedings. Mr. Bualfa considered that the jurisdictional statute applies, but the statute does not apply to the decision. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and the American Immigration Council have filed amicus briefs arguing that Congress intended 8 U.S.C. 1252 to be relevant to this case. A competent court and (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) a separate competent court are established. Patel v. Garland) appears and applies only to cases involving expungement proceedings. In Boualfa, the Supreme Court stated:[d]Determine whether the provisions of the INA, including dual jurisdiction, apply “even when, as in this case, the non-national is not in deportation proceedings and is not seeking review of a final deportation order.” Without.” Although the Supreme Court has publicly stated that it will not decide this issue (as it did in the Patel case), it will be difficult to persuade lower courts not to apply this prohibition in cases where noncitizens are not part of the litigation. Dew.
Bualfa could pose major problems for employment-based petitions. Boualfa has already filed another immigrant visa application on her husband’s behalf and, if denied, could challenge the denial in federal district court. Employers may face challenges that are too difficult to continue sponsoring noncitizens. For example, the noncitizen may have worked for the employer who submitted the immigrant visa application, or a subsequent employer, based on an employment authorization issued by the U.S. Immigration Service because the noncitizen was an adjustment applicant (for a green card). There is a gender. If USCIS subsequently denies the adjustment request, cancels the immigrant visa application, and terminates the work authorization, the noncitizen will likely have no option to remain in the United States and continue employment. And if new processing requires approval from the U.S. Department of Labor and Immigration and Immigration Services, employers will be denied services to noncitizens in the U.S. for years. Additionally, demand for employment-based immigrant visas exceeds the annual limit, which could lead to further delays.
Boualfa points out that USCIS can approve immigrant visa applications and then cancel them to avoid liability. It is concerning that the Supreme Court continues to conduct judicial review, even though it has not yet fully considered whether these jurisdictional provisions should apply beyond removal proceedings.
Filed in: USCIS Supreme Court
