老澳门开奖结果

For many noncitizens, the road to citizenship begins when a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member files a visa petition on their behalf. That was the case for Ala鈥檃 Hamayel, whose wife, Petitioner Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition on his behalf. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved Ms. Bouarfa鈥檚 visa petition, allowing her husband to live lawfully in the United States with her and their children and providing him with a pathway to citizenship. Years later, the agency revoked the visa petition, asserting that Mr. Hamayel鈥檚 prior marriage had been a sham鈥攁 conclusion based on testimony from Mr. Hamayel鈥檚 ex-wife that she later recanted. Ms. Bouarfa seeks to challenge the agency鈥檚 decision to revoke the visa petition.

This case presents the question whether visa petitioners can ask a federal court to review an agency鈥檚 decision to revoke a visa petition. Long settled Supreme Court precedent establishes that federal agency actions are presumptively reviewable by federal courts. Indeed, if the agency had denied Ms. Bouarfa鈥檚 visa petition in the first instance, everyone agrees that Ms. Bouarfa would have been able to challenge that decision in federal court. But the government argues that the decision to revoke Ms. Bouarfa鈥檚 visa petition is not reviewable because of a statute that bars federal-court review of (i) 鈥渁ny judgment regarding鈥� certain enumerated forms of immigration relief and (ii) 鈥渁ny other decision or action鈥� specified to be in the discretion of the agency. According to the government, clause (ii) covers the agency鈥檚 sham-marriage decision, even though that decision is not discretionary. Our brief explains why that is wrong, and why clause (ii) applies only to discretionary decisions鈥攏ot any and everything related to those decisions.

This case has potentially devastating consequences for noncitizens and their families. If the Court adopts the government鈥檚 sweeping argument, it will slam the courthouse door shut in many cases. Immigration agencies are overburdened and serious mistakes by agencies happen. Noncitizens and their families have long relied upon courts to correct those mistakes. But now, the government seeks to block federal courts from even considering whether a mistake occurred in many immigration proceedings. And, in some situations, federal courts would be precluded from reviewing even a blatant constitutional violation鈥攕uch as if the agency based its decision on racial stereotyping. Immigration agencies鈥� decisions have life-altering consequences; noncitizens and their families deserve, at minimum, the opportunity for a fair day in court.