US Supreme Court says citizens can't sue over foreign spouses' visa denials

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

US Supreme Court says citizens can't sue over foreign spouses' visa denials | Reuters

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

SCOTUS Visa Case Implies Biden Border Order Is Unconstitutional (thefederalist.com)

[JeanneAdil 6,582]

 

 

U can't sue but spouse visa denial can be appealed by Immigration Court .but i don't advise it.

 

As most know we went thru denial after answering huge RFE and then appealed the NOIR

 

and we are married over 14 years and happy and doing good

 

BUT i think most USC's  should seriously consider  the CO decision as a warning and maybe try to learn why the denial

 

These CO's live in the country of the embassy,, know the people,  see the paperwork and understand more about the circumstances than  we do 

I don't know if a CO is allowed to violate the privacy of the immigrant by saying things like  " :hey,  your fiancee is talking to and telling many women he loves them" CO can check the ds160 or ds 260  info on the social media    but this happens.

 

We have even seen some come,  marry ,  get the green card ,  then divorce and apply for a person back home 

 

And one woman flew into Atlanta and text her fiancee that CBP wouldn't allow her in and then he saw her leaving in another car

 

Yes, divorces happen and even if married to another USC marriage was no guarantees 

but there are reasons (good ones) to deny or want more proofs of a relationship

and we need to trust the judgement of a trained professional

[Family 4,065]

 

The court in a 6-3 decision, opens new tab said Sandra Munoz, a U.S. citizen and civil rights lawyer, cannot challenge the U.S. Department of State's denial of her El Salvadoran husband's visa application after the agency waited three years to explain that it suspected him of being a gang member.

 

25 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

BUT i think most USC's  should seriously consider  the CO decision as a warning and maybe try to learn why the denial

The SCOTUS decision linked by OP. clearly says the CO does NOT have to give a reason for denial nor do they have to abide by any time constraints in their decision making. …
 

 

 

Visa denials are not reviewable in court unless the government violates an applicant's constitutional rights in the process.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected Munoz's claim that the delay in explaining the denial violated her due process rights by interfering with her fundamental right to marry.

[illumined 14]

I have mixed feelings about this. It's good that a gang member isn't allowed in, but giving the agency unlimited powers with no accountability is always a recipe for disaster.

[KMG 133]

8 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

US Supreme Court says citizens can't sue over foreign spouses' visa denials | Reuters

 

This is why vetting before marrying is so important. Character matters in any marriage, but it is especially essential when marrying in another culture. With some of the divorce stories being posted here almost daily, it is clear that US Citizens are under the assumption that it is their right to bring whoever they want into the country, only to find out they were being scammed all along.

 

[KMG 133]

2 hours ago, illumined said:

I have mixed feelings about this. It's good that a gang member isn't allowed in, but giving the agency unlimited powers with no accountability is always a recipe for disaster.

I am with you on this...the USC should be given some explanation.

[TBoneTX 45,603]

7 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

most USC's should seriously consider the CO decision as a warning

In most cases, certainly.  In the case of the incompetent management and out-of-control Vice-Consuls at the hellhole Guayaquil consulate when I and my contemporaries were trying to get our fiancees/wives here, there needed to be accountability.

3 hours ago, illumined said:

giving the agency unlimited powers with no accountability

The consulates have already had the unlimited powers to grant or refuse visas.  The accountability is internal, and I understand that it's gotten far better since we were all tormented at GYQ.

6 hours ago, Family said:

the CO does NOT have to give a reason for denial

I'm not sure that they always can, and this is for multiple reasons.

[SalishSea 17,970]

58 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I'm not sure that they always can, and this is for multiple reasons.

National security being one of them.

[Family 4,065]

46 minutes ago, SalishSea said:

National security being one of them.

In all honesty , they can  ( and often do ) deny and give broad non detailed /non  compromising reasons. ..example

‘ reason to believe “ you are a   bad guy , gangster , trafficker.. ( maybe an old tattoo from stupid teen years, hanging out with friends that have marked rap records) 

‘lack of bonafides ( but they really suspect fraud and never tell you )

‘national security ( past or present political/designated terrorist affiliation ) 

 

In this current Munoz decision, the consular non reviewability doctrine remains undisturbed  but the fight was really about the due process right of the US Citizen Spouse . 

Sure you have a right to marry…but to bring your foreign spouse to live with you in the US is a “ favor” not a right.

 

Full text here

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-334_e18f.pdf

 

[thonati 37]

This is a great, well-thought out decision.  The Plaintiff's argument is that the US Constitution outlines unalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Therefore the State Department is required by the US Constitution to provide a visa to a US Citizen's fiance/husband so she can be 'happy".  The answer is very simple.  The US Citizen can move to her fiance's country to be with him/her. They also could both move to a country where they both can get a visa and long term residency.

 

The US Supreme Court usually gets these things right most of the time.   I am not surprised that the 3 Liberal justices dissented.  They usually are on the wrong side of decisions.

[thonati 37]

12 hours ago, KMG said:

 

This is why vetting before marrying is so important. Character matters in any marriage, but it is especially essential when marrying in another culture. With some of the divorce stories being posted here almost daily, it is clear that US Citizens are under the assumption that it is their right to bring whoever they want into the country, only to find out they were being scammed all along.

 

This is a well thought out statement.  A scam marriage denial is a secondary protection from this decision.  Can you imagine MS13 would set up a "marriage factory" to get more of their people into the US.  Citizenship without consequences for foreigners.  

[illumined 14]

On 6/21/2024 at 7:15 PM, KMG said:

 

This is why vetting before marrying is so important. Character matters in any marriage, but it is especially essential when marrying in another culture. With some of the divorce stories being posted here almost daily, it is clear that US Citizens are under the assumption that it is their right to bring whoever they want into the country, only to find out they were being scammed all along.

 

 

True there are scammers that make it through, but going full nanny state isn't the answer. 

[harry.st 62]

On 6/22/2024 at 5:30 PM, thonati said:

This is a great, well-thought out decision.  The Plaintiff's argument is that the US Constitution outlines unalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Therefore the State Department is required by the US Constitution to provide a visa to a US Citizen's fiance/husband so she can be 'happy".  The answer is very simple.  The US Citizen can move to her fiance's country to be with him/her. They also could both move to a country where they both can get a visa and long term residency.

 

The US Supreme Court usually gets these things right most of the time.   I am not surprised that the 3 Liberal justices dissented.  They usually are on the wrong side of decisions.

 

Well, if a US citizen can have life/liberty/... WITH the spouse IN another country, by the same token (s)he can do the same even WITHOUT a spouse (if the constitution is not violated in the first case, it is, similarly, not violated in the second. Basically the citizen can take his life/liberty/... and go to hell).

 

So I think we should start kicking USCs out of the country, too (for cause - ie only the bad guys). What do you think? Shouldn't we? (It would clean up the country - no question about it. As you explained, is it very simple. Are you a lawyer, per chance? I hear Yale is good at constitutional law)

 

-- h

 

PS The decision relies heavily on established precedent, and not in enjoying life/liberty/... abroad (that liberty is affected, there is no question - it is even mentioned in the decision. Sadly, SCOTUS did not follow tonati's line of thought - although it mentioned it, in passing..).

Edited June 24 by harry.st

[harry.st 62]

On 6/22/2024 at 2:19 AM, illumined said:

I have mixed feelings about this. It's good that a gang member isn't allowed in, but giving the agency unlimited powers with no accountability is always a recipe for disaster.

 

The decision relies on this principle (as well as similar cases before. Basically, a USC cannot bring whoever (s)he fancies in the country, to keep him/her company).

 

To your point, I agree w/ you, of course. Arguably the only way to fix this is via a law. Likely, it will happen, sooner-or-later, as the critical voices have been multiplying. It is tricky, though...

Edited June 24 by harry.st