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

[Boiler 45,735]

Be careful what you wish for

[harry.st 62]

On 6/22/2024 at 5:16 AM, KMG said:

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

 

They cannot! (sort of). I believe in this case the USC was told that the consular officer, as well as the chain of command that reviewed the decision (7 people in total - whether they were rubber-stamping, I do not know) believed the hubby was in a gang.

 

The USC sent a letter from an "expert" that said that the hubby's tattoos had nothing to do w/ any gang (but as we know, expert advice is often available to those than can pay).

 

What was very illuminating was an amicus brief from some USCIS officers, that mentioned that these decisions are often totally arbitrary, the officers are learning on the job, that incredible and frivolous biases come into play (they had a story where, because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has some interest in some - big - real estate company, a certain consular officer was rejecting everybody and anybody from Iran who was in the real estate business. Just in case... What kind of explanation can one be offered in these circumstances? - this is pure insanity).

 

However, given the administrative constraints (time, workload etc) the only honest explanation I can think of is  "we could not, in the 1/2 hour allotted to the case, convince ourselves that all was kosher".  Everything else requires discussion/investigation/... - things there are no resources for (if a new law makes such work compulsory... I can see wait times exploding).

Edited June 24 by harry.st

[harry.st 62]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:59 PM, JeanneAdil said:

and we need to trust the judgement of a trained professional

 

Well the amicus brief - presumably by trained professionals - made it clear that their colleagues are often both untrained and unprofessional. Here.

Edited June 24 by harry.st

[Family 4,065]

7 hours ago, harry.st said:

 

They cannot! (sort of). I believe in this case the USC was told that the consular officer, as well as the chain of command that reviewed the decision (7 people in total - whether they were rubber-stamping, I do not know) believed the hubby was in a gang.

 

The USC sent a letter from an "expert" that said that the hubby's tattoos had nothing to do w/ any gang (but as we know, expert advice is often available to those than can pay).

 

What was very illuminating was an amicus brief from some USCIS officers, that mentioned that these decisions are often totally arbitrary, the officers are learning on the job, that incredible and frivolous biases come into play (they had a story where, because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has some interest in some - big - real estate company, a certain consular officer was rejecting everybody and anybody from Iran who was in the real estate business. Just in case... What kind of explanation can one be offered in these circumstances? - this is pure insanity).

 

However, given the administrative constraints (time, workload etc) the only honest explanation I can think of is  "we could not, in the 1/2 hour allotted to the case, convince ourselves that all was kosher".  Everything else requires discussion/investigation/... - things there are no resources for (if a new law makes such work compulsory... I can see wait times exploding).

The USC citizen in Munoz case happens to be an attorney herself and this is likely the only reason she managed to take her fight all the way to the Supremes, most do not have the resources or stamina to fight the legal battle.

The facts in her husband’s case are not the Ohh OMG a gang banger was trying to sneak in.

Fellow had been living in the US , no rap sheet , he then married and dutifully tried the “ legal “ way . ..2010 to 2015 they did the I-130 consular process and he went merrily on his way in 2015 to attend interview… where he listened to the sounds of crickets for 3 years.  Tattoos are an immense risk for anyone doing consular process…God forbid your ink is  a Madonna , praying hands ..popular with Latinos.

 

The amici nailed it on workload ( 30 interviews per hour is insane) lack of adequate training/supervisory review ( less than 10% of the required minimum and rubber stamping initial denial anyway) ..plus the inevitable bias and bad faith of your CO. 
 

A few years ago , two Iranian sisters ( each with husband and kids) went to Ankara for their F-4 immigrant visa interview. Both sisters (principals) and their children get approved and come to the US. Both husbands get put in AP…radio silence for over 2 years. 
‘Finally , after congressman gets through, consulate says ‘National Security ‘ both husbands denied …and NOTHING they can do

I am still scratching my head…why let the immediate family of suspected terrorists in…

‘
 

 

[Boiler 45,735]

The Iranian situation is much more obvious, I assume they had links to Terrorist organisations, and how do you carry out Background checks for Iranians. In Iran.

 

I seem to remember Laurel Scott got into waivers due to her Husband's situation, not sure if they are still together, not that it matters.

 

Tattoos being gang related can be a big deal particularly with certain consulates, now I do not know which ones are associated with gangs, I had not heard of Madonna being an issue, but certainly would not be going through Consulate processing with gang related issues without good legal advice.

 

I saw The Bikeriders on Saturday, really like it. Similar sorts of issues.

 

 

[KMG 133]

8 hours ago, harry.st said:

 

They cannot! (sort of). I believe in this case the USC was told that the consular officer, as well as the chain of command that reviewed the decision (7 people in total - whether they were rubber-stamping, I do not know) believed the hubby was in a gang.

 

The USC sent a letter from an "expert" that said that the hubby's tattoos had nothing to do w/ any gang (but as we know, expert advice is often available to those than can pay).

 

What was very illuminating was an amicus brief from some USCIS officers, that mentioned that these decisions are often totally arbitrary, the officers are learning on the job, that incredible and frivolous biases come into play (they had a story where, because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has some interest in some - big - real estate company, a certain consular officer was rejecting everybody and anybody from Iran who was in the real estate business. Just in case... What kind of explanation can one be offered in these circumstances? - this is pure insanity).

 

However, given the administrative constraints (time, workload etc) the only honest explanation I can think of is  "we could not, in the 1/2 hour allotted to the case, convince ourselves that all was kosher".  Everything else requires discussion/investigation/... - things there are no resources for (if a new law makes such work compulsory... I can see wait times exploding).

Very insightful information....  and eye opening....

[KMG 133]

24 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The Iranian situation is much more obvious, I assume they had links to Terrorist organisations, and how do you carry out Background checks for Iranians. In Iran.

 

I seem to remember Laurel Scott got into waivers due to her Husband's situation, not sure if they are still together, not that it matters.

 

Tattoos being gang related can be a big deal particularly with certain consulates, now I do not know which ones are associated with gangs, I had not heard of Madonna being an issue, but certainly would not be going through Consulate processing with gang related issues without good legal advice.

 

I saw The Bikeriders on Saturday, really like it. Similar sorts of issues.

 

 

My huband is from right next door to El Salvador, you are correct, the consulate knows what to look for- and the drs completing the exams.  Administrative processing lasts a long time here, (I know of one case that lasted 5 months) for various different reasons. 

[Family 4,065]

 

 

 

[thonati 37]

11 hours ago, harry.st said:

 

 

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..).

Right.  The US Constitution does not mention anything regarding immigration.  So the SCOUS made the right decision in this case.  I have read the US Constitution many times in my life.  The Founding Fathers were brilliant but obviously it is impossible to foresee every single situation that may arise 200 years in the future.

 

The Pursuit of Happiness cannot jeopardize the nation as a whole.  I submit we should set up a "pre-authorization" whereby the foreign national does the background check first to see if they will be approved.  This way, the USC can move on if they choose knowing their fiance will not be admitted. 

[Family 4,065]

https://www.aila.org/library/aila-president-responds-to-supreme-court-decision-in-department-of-state-v-munoz
This is a disheartening decision that strips U.S. citizens of the ability to challenge an erroneous denial by a consular officer in a court of law. Although hopefully not the case, this decision could further embolden individual, non-attorney consular officers to act erratically as it strengthens the doctrine of nonreviewability. This lack of due process could unfairly deny many U.S. citizens the opportunity to live in this country with their spouses and will result in unnecessary family separations or subject the U.S. citizens to the arbitrariness of the immigration laws of other countries. As a nation of immigrants and a country where we value our right to be heard in a court of law, to say American citizens have no fundamental liberty interest in building a life with their spouse or their life partner in the United States is a staggering over-reach by the government. Life-altering decisions cannot be left solely in the hands of a bureaucrat and must be reviewable by a court of law.”

[harry.st 62]

55 minutes ago, Family said:

Life-altering decisions cannot be left solely in the hands of a bureaucrat and must be reviewable by a court of law.”

 

This is correct.

 

But it is difficult!

 

In the case of spouse visa, the court will have to - eventually - decide whether to let somebody in, with that person having 2/5/10/20/40 percent probability of being a gang member/terrorist. Where do you draw the line? If you had to draft the law, how would you go about it? (would you exclude, say, close relatives of Bin Laden? (who, incidentally, lived peacefully in NYC - even after 9/11, iirc) In other words, how many US citizens are you willing to piss off, just to be safe? There is always a trade-off, much like with the speed limit.

Edited June 24 by harry.st

[Dashinka 24,639]

10 minutes ago, harry.st said:

 

This is correct.

 

But it is difficult!

 

In the case of spouse visa, the court will have to - eventually - decide whether to let somebody in, with that person having 2/5/10/20/40 percent probability of being a gang member/terrorist. Where do you draw the line? If you had to draft the law, how would you go about it? (would you exclude, say, close relatives of Bin Laden? (who, incidentally, lived peacefully in NYC - even after 9/11, iirc) In other words, how many US citizens are you willing to piss off, just to be safe? There is always a trade-off, much like with the speed limit.

That is exactly the issue.  Bureaucrats have to weigh a lot despite their level of training, and no one wants to let in another San Bernadino couple.

[Dashinka 24,639]

1 hour ago, Family said:

https://www.aila.org/library/aila-president-responds-to-supreme-court-decision-in-department-of-state-v-munoz
This is a disheartening decision that strips U.S. citizens of the ability to challenge an erroneous denial by a consular officer in a court of law. Although hopefully not the case, this decision could further embolden individual, non-attorney consular officers to act erratically as it strengthens the doctrine of nonreviewability. This lack of due process could unfairly deny many U.S. citizens the opportunity to live in this country with their spouses and will result in unnecessary family separations or subject the U.S. citizens to the arbitrariness of the immigration laws of other countries. As a nation of immigrants and a country where we value our right to be heard in a court of law, to say American citizens have no fundamental liberty interest in building a life with their spouse or their life partner in the United States is a staggering over-reach by the government. Life-altering decisions cannot be left solely in the hands of a bureaucrat and must be reviewable by a court of law.”

Not really surprising AILA would issue a response like this as it could hamper an income stream.  Btw, life altering decisions are made everyday by bureaucrats.

[Family 4,065]

31 minutes ago, harry.st said:

 

This is correct.

 

But it is difficult!

 

In the case of spouse visa, the court will have to - eventually - decide whether to let somebody in, with that person having 2/5/10/20/40 percent probability of being a gang member/terrorist. Where do you draw the line? If you had to draft the law, how would you go about it? (would you exclude, say, close relatives of Bin Laden? (who, incidentally, lived peacefully in NYC - even after 9/11, iirc) In other words, how many US citizens are you willing to piss off, just to be safe? There is always a trade-off, much like with the speed limit.

I am all for extreme vetting 😂…heck some here even suggest the USC should pre vett ( what like send the future mother in law to take a crack ?)

 

As for fixes, surely ANY measures would be better than the existent practice of doing nothing, saying nothing for years. Even a self policing channel of being able to challenge /appeal and second pair of eyes reviewed the determination , offered a chance to present evidence . ..or catch an internal boo boo…like my real estate Iranians

 

Munoz got clipped because she allegedly did not meet the 2nd requirement of showing such right was  “ deeply rooted in history “….but hey, history buffs will disagree 😂;

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/24/the-supreme-courts-dubious-use-of-history-in-department-of-state-v-munoz/

 

 

 

 

[harry.st 62]

4 minutes ago, Family said:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/24/the-supreme-courts-dubious-use-of-history-in-department-of-state-v-munoz/

 

 

Ha! Thanks for posting this (had been looking for a while  - and  kina disappointed that volokh had not mentioned the issue. Good things come to those who wait, I guess)