Docket 23-583
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
DecidedDec 10, 2024
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Courts cannot review the government's decision to revoke an approved visa petition
What it does
Federal courts cannot review the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to revoke an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155, because that revocation is a discretionary act shielded from judicial review by §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The ruling resolves a split among federal appeals courts, establishing a uniform national rule that such revocations are beyond court review. However, if the government denies a new visa petition on the same grounds, that denial can still be challenged in court.
Who benefits
The federal government — specifically the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — which can revoke approved visa petitions without those decisions being reviewed by federal courts.
Who is affected
U.S. citizens who have filed visa petitions for noncitizen spouses or relatives whose petitions are later revoked, and the noncitizen family members whose path to lawful permanent residence is cut off by revocation, with no ability to challenge the revocation in court.
Practical impact
U.S. citizens whose approved visa petitions for a family member are revoked by the government cannot go to federal court to challenge that revocation, even if they believe the government's factual findings — such as a sham-marriage determination — are wrong or unsupported by evidence. The only path to judicial review is to file a new visa petition and, if that is denied, challenge the denial in court. This means families may face prolonged separation while pursuing the new-petition route, with no direct court check on the revocation decision itself.
Majority reasoning
The Court held that the statute authorizing revocation — which says the Secretary "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition" — is a clear grant of discretion, because the word "may" signals discretion and Congress placed no conditions or limits on when or how the Secretary must act. The Court reasoned that a separate law, §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), bars courts from reviewing any agency decision that Congress made discretionary by statute, and §1155's broad, unconditioned language fits squarely within that bar. The Court rejected the argument that a separate provision requiring denial of petitions involving sham marriages implicitly forced the Secretary to also revoke any previously approved petition once a sham marriage was discovered, finding that provision only governs the initial approval decision and says nothing about revocation. The Court also dismissed the argument that because the agency always revokes in practice after a sham-marriage finding, the decision is no longer truly discretionary — Congress made judicial review depend on what the law says, not on how the agency happens to behave. Finally, the Court noted that petitioners are not without any remedy: a U.S. citizen can file a new visa petition, and if that petition is denied on sham-marriage grounds, that denial is subject to judicial review.
Constitutional question
Does a federal law that strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary immigration decisions also block courts from reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to revoke a previously approved visa petition?