Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Headline: Court affirms that Homeland Security can revoke approved spouse visa petitions for alleged sham marriages and bars federal court review, limiting petitioners’ ability to challenge revocations.
Holding: The Court held that the Secretary’s revocation of an approved visa petition under §1155 based on a sham-marriage finding is discretionary and therefore not subject to federal-court review under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
- Bars federal-court challenges to Secretary’s discretionary revocations of approved spouse visa petitions.
- Makes it harder for petitioners to undo revocations; agency discretion largely insulated from court review.
- Allows filing a new petition, which may be reviewed if later denied.
Summary
Background
A U.S. citizen, Amina Bouarfa, filed a visa petition for her noncitizen husband, Ala’a Hamayel. USCIS initially approved the petition, a step that can let a noncitizen seek permanent residence. Later, USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke after uncovering evidence suggesting Hamayel had previously entered a marriage to evade immigration laws. The agency concluded there was substantial evidence of a sham marriage and revoked its prior approval under the Secretary’s authority to “revoke the approval of any petition ... for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause,” 8 U.S.C. §1155. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and Bouarfa sued, but the lower courts held they lacked jurisdiction under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether revocations under §1155 are discretionary decisions that federal courts cannot review under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion explained that §1155’s text—saying the Secretary “may” revoke “at any time” for what he deems “good and sufficient cause”—is a broad grant of discretion. The Court rejected Bouarfa’s argument that a sham-marriage finding leaves the Secretary no choice to revoke, noting §1154(c) governs approval but does not create an ongoing duty to keep approvals in place. The Court also said consistent agency practice does not alter Congress’s choice to make revocations discretionary.
Real world impact
The decision means courts generally cannot hear challenges to the Secretary’s discretionary revocation of approved spouse visa petitions, at least when based on §1155 authority. Affected people include U.S. citizens and their noncitizen spouses whose prior approvals have been revoked. The Court noted petitioners can file a new petition and, if denied, may seek judicial review of that denial.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?