Supreme Court Considers Visa Case For Foreign Spouses

[TBoneTX 45,287]

That's right.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The DOJ will be arguing before the SCOTUS the opposite of what we want.

Everyone is already settled on their position. What is not fully known is whether the case will succeed. Let's just say that nearly all previous challenges were tossed out without even getting a sip of coffee or tea. Just thrown out.

It's my feeling that the fabric of the awful "doctrine" is woven deeply within the national security of the United States. The courts are afraid to mess with it, because if they open the door and some consular office lets someone in who engages in terrorism, kills, or rapes, or breaks moral laws, that they will have it thrown right back in their face.

However, there is little said that it's the USCIS that approves petitions. Consulates do NOT have the authority to reject or readjudicate unless they have NEW and compelling information. However, the courts cannot compel them to produce it, because of this doctrine.

Yes, it needs to change. To what, and how? This stuff is very complicated and very few immigration lawyers can explain it or even know about it.

From Marc Ellis' website:

I. The Burden a Consular Officer Must Meet to Recommend Revocation of an Approved Family Petition

There is a heavy burden a consular officer must meet before he or she can recommend an DHS-approved petition be revoked. In employment-based IV cases, a consular officer has the authority to invalidate labor certifications, if so instructed by the Department of State after obtaining an advisory opinion from the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

In family cases though, the power of consulates is more limited. DHS has the sole statutory authority to approve or revoke a family-based immigrant visa petition. And a DHS approval is a prima facie presentation of eligibility under the Act.

A good restatement of the standards governing petition returns by consulate is found in a February 2004 cable R 251642Z FEB 04, excerpted below, sent to all consulates.

… “6. In adjudicating visa cases involving petitions, posts should bear in mind three important factors: A. the consular officer's role in the petition process is to determine if there is substantial evidence relevant to petition validity not previously considered by DHS, and not to merely readjudicate the petition; B. the memo supporting the petition return must clearly show the factual and concrete reasons for recommending revocation (observations made by the consular officer cannot be conclusive, speculative, equivocal or irrelevant) and; C. consular officers must provide to the applicant in writing as full an explanation as possible of the legal and factual basis for the visa denial and petition return. Post must maintain a copy of the returned petition, other evidence relevant to the case, and a copy of the written notification of the denial.

No readjudication of petitions

7. In general, an approved petition will be considered by consular officers as prima facie evidence that the requirements for classification - which are examined in the petition process - have been met. Where Congress has placed responsibility and authority with DHS to determine whether the requirements for status which are examined in the petition process have been met, consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of petitions without specific evidence, generally unavailable to DHS at the time of petition approval, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status (see 9 FAM 41.53, Note 2, 41.54 Note 3.2-2, 41.55 Note 8, 41.56 Note 10, 41.57 Note 6, and 42.43 Note 2) due to fraud, changes in circumstances or clear error on the part of DHS in approving the petition. Conoffs should not assume that a petition should be revoked simply because they would have reached a different decision if adjudicating the petition. …”

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

[luckytxn 2,264]

I agree with you. The recipient is not considered a U.S. citizen so there is no protections under our laws. We know that we are affected though and it has a huge impact on our lives. I am bothered by the consulates not being able to be reviewed. What is the remedy you think we should have? Who is going to review their decisions that is not biased?

Everyone is already settled on their position. What is not fully known is whether the case will succeed. Let's just say that nearly all previous challenges were tossed out without even getting a sip of coffee or tea. Just thrown out.

It's my feeling that the fabric of the awful "doctrine" is woven deeply within the national security of the United States. The courts are afraid to mess with it, because if they open the door and some consular office lets someone in who engages in terrorism, kills, or rapes, or breaks moral laws, that they will have it thrown right back in their face.

However, there is little said that it's the USCIS that approves petitions. Consulates do NOT have the authority to reject or readjudicate unless they have NEW and compelling information. However, the courts cannot compel them to produce it, because of this doctrine.

Yes, it needs to change. To what, and how? This stuff is very complicated and very few immigration lawyers can explain it or even know about it.

From Marc Ellis' website:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0323-ellis.shtm

[luckytxn 2,264]

See if the justices have their own seperate emails. Find out who are the friends of the court are.

But they are part of the current argument in this case.

Who do you believe we should email to show support for this case?

Give me a list please?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I agree with you. The recipient is not considered a U.S. citizen so there is no protections under our laws. We know that we are affected though and it has a huge impact on our lives. I am bothered by the consulates not being able to be reviewed. What is the remedy you think we should have? Who is going to review their decisions that is not biased?

We need to put our voices out here and be heard!! This pending case gives us the perfect opportunity!

One person emailing the court is not compelling enough

[Janelle2002 3,865]

See if the justices have their own seperate emails. Find out who are the friends of the court are.

I am sure they are not going to give out the Justice's separate emails to the public.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

We need to put our voices out here and be heard!! This pending case gives us the perfect opportunity!

One person emailing the court is not compelling enough

The only people we as Americans screwed by immigration can influence are: ? I don't think anyone really gives a S--H--I--T about us. When TV news, congressman and Senators think and deal with immigration, they are thinking of the 20 million illegal noisemakers already here. They would commit political suicide to stand up and speak out for us.

When is the last time you actually heard or read a prime time or page one news headline like:

"Thousands of American Citizen Spouses Visas Rejected while Illegals Stream Across the Border"

What we see instead on non left news is:

"Thousands of Illegals Stream Across the Border"

What you will see on MSNBC, CNN, and the rest is:

Poor undocumented people starving and thirsty. They should be able stay.

I have never seen a headline story that sticks that addresses the plight of legal immigration. The only comment you will hear is: "Awwww, yes. I know. Our immigration system is broken. I feel so sorry for you"

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Find out who are the friends of the court are.

I was about to say -- who filed amicus briefs? Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If DoJ is on the side of the Doctrine, e-mailing them will do no good.

I have no idea of whom to e-mail except for the Supreme Court, which is probably the best anyway.

Unless it is an Amicus Brief, the court won't even see it.

The lawyer above beat me to it.

Edited February 25, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Unless it is an Amicus Brief, the court won't even see it. And properly formatted, double spaced with line numbers.

The lawyer above beat me to it.

There are lots of documents to be found on this case from Janelle's first post and link.

It's here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I was about to say -- who filed amicus briefs? Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

Jan 16 2015 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of Law School Professors filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of Former Consular Officers filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amicus curiae of California Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of National Justice for Our Neighbors, et al. filed. (Distributed)

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Jan 16 2015 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of Law School Professors filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of Former Consular Officers filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amicus curiae of California Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed) Jan 20 2015 Brief amici curiae of National Justice for Our Neighbors, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Those are the ones. Bear in mind that you should probably read the briefs -- even just to skim them -- to make sure that the organizations actually concur with your thoughts on this topic. While all these briefs are in support of the respondent's position, they may or may not support YOUR position.

While I don't appreciate some of the bigoted rhetoric here, I do support ditching the doctrine. It just isn't fit for purpose.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

There are indeed several Christian groups involved which can provide heartburn to left wing bigots. The addition of groups like CAIRE, and CIOGC also is to be expected as most folks are not actually radical islamists. That's supposed to be part of the background screening process to root out the left and right wing terrorists.

[Karmalicious 60]

I was about to say -- who filed amicus briefs? Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kerry-v-din/

Wow. Working hard FOUR days this month.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow. Working hard FOUR days this month.

They are scrambling through all the cases, then it will be June before any decisions are posted.