DHS can revoke immigration visas

[EatBulaga 316]

I believe before DHS can not revoke visas, and only the courts can?

But the recent Supreme Court ruling allows DHS, of which USCIS and CBP are part of, to revoke visas.

https://youtu.be/FJClOkn92VA?si=MAejAi7n7GjCSQXe

 

 

So if I understand this correctly before, CBP can deny visa entry but can not take away your visa and those denied entry can appeal to the courts? 

But now, CBP can deny entry AND take away the visa at POE?

Is that the correct interpretation?

Edited Friday at 10:09 AM by EatBulaga

[Crazy Cat 41,982]

2 hours ago, EatBulaga said:

I believe before DHS can not revoke visas, and only the courts can?

No.  USCIS could revoke visas, but courts could review those revocations.  Seems courts will now have less authority to review.....just my interpretation.

[Boiler 45,712]

I remember at least one K 1 that had been issued by mistake and the PoE caught it.

[igoyougoduke 1,662]

Never understood why courts were allowed to in the first place unless there was a life/death situation 

[JeanneAdil 6,570]

Surpreme court decision for this was based on someone who broke US immigration laws 

 

Not only can they revoke a visa (Casablanca embassy called a Moroccan to come in and they revoked an issued K1 visa)   but they can revoke naturalization if  a person is found to have broken US laws   

 

Chapter 2 Grounds for revocation of Naturalization

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2

[OldUser 6,920]

Visas could be revoked in the past, and even when not revoked, DHS could tell CBP not to let a person in.

Looks like it's about closing avenues for disputing such discretionary decision.

 

[Demise 1,301]

16 hours ago, EatBulaga said:

I believe before DHS can not revoke visas, and only the courts can?

But the recent Supreme Court ruling allows DHS, of which USCIS and CBP are part of, to revoke visas.

https://youtu.be/FJClOkn92VA?si=MAejAi7n7GjCSQXe

 

 

So if I understand this correctly before, CBP can deny visa entry but can not take away your visa and those denied entry can appeal to the courts? 

But now, CBP can deny entry AND take away the visa at POE?

Is that the correct interpretation?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-583_onjq.pdf

That's the decision they're (poorly) talking about. Give it a read.

 

Basically it's not that USCIS can yoink your visa nilly willy. In this case the I-130 was approved and later revoked when it came to light that the beneficiary previously entered into a sham marriage and got slapped with a 204(c). The I-130 revocation was appealed to the BIA that dismissed the appeal.

 

Then the petitioner tried to seek collateral review via a federal district court, that one denied it, appealed to the 11th circuit that again denied it, and the supreme court that similarly denied it. Now, collateral review in immigration is hard to come by and the only claims that ever really succeed there happen under the APA where the agency's own rules are contrary to law. In most cases you have to petition for review after exhausting the administrative remedies (for an I-130 that'd be USCIS -> BIA -> US Court of Appeals -> Supreme Court). Moreover the claim here wasn't really that the ban was applied incorrectly, rather the whole claim was that USCIS abused its discretion by revoking the I-130, which it did correctly. Moreover, in general discretionary decisions are not directly appealable (e.g. why you can't ordinarily appeal an I-485 denial). 204(c) is also annoying in that there's no waiver available, you have to basically disprove that the prior marriage was bogus in course of seeking some other immigration benefit.

 

So all in all, nothing changes. It's pretty much always been this way.

Edited Saturday at 02:45 AM by Demise