Listen To Story Above
The nation’s highest court unanimously ruled that the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) possesses expansive discretionary powers to rescind previously approved visa applications, without being subjected to judicial oversight. This decision in the Bourfa v. Mayorkas case reaffirmed the Secretary’s authority to revoke immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” as stipulated in 8 United States Code (USC) §1155.
BREAKING: A 9-0 Supreme Court ruled federal courts LACK authority to review revocations of previously approved visa applications if they are the result of a discretionary agency review.
(Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 23-583) #SCOTUS https://t.co/OGuqZd91CE pic.twitter.com/lszle3kdIS— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) December 10, 2024
The case centered around Amina Bourfa, who in 2015 filed a petition to sponsor her husband, a Palestinian national named Ala’a Hamayel, for permanent legal residency in the United States. Although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially granted approval, they later rescinded it in 2017 after discovering that Hamayel had previously paid $5,000 to his ex-wife to facilitate his visa process, according to the court’s opinion.
The court’s ruling stated that Congress has empowered the Secretary with the ability to revoke visa petitions “at any time,” and such decisions are not subject to judicial challenge.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to have their noncitizen spouse admitted to the country
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 against Sandra Muñoz, a Los Angeles civil rights attorney
She argued that her husband's visa… pic.twitter.com/UiskVRdYx9
— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) June 21, 2024
Data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) indicates that as of January 2024, an estimated 12.8 million legal permanent residents reside in the United States, with over two-thirds having entered as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens.
“The ‘good and sufficient’ language confers the broadest level of discretion that you could imagine,” Justice Samuel Alito remarked during oral arguments when the Supreme Court heard Bourfa v. Mayorkas in October.
