Consular nonreviewability

Last updated

Consular nonreviewability (sometimes written as consular non-reviewability, and also called consular absolutism) refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers (Foreign Service Officers working for the United States Department of State) cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government. [1] [2]

Contents

Since the alien denied entry at a consulate abroad was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, it is not a priori clear whether the alien has standing to sue in the US justice system. However, the principle of consular nonreviewability goes further than simply denying aliens standing; it also creates a strong presumption against judicial review of consular decisions requested by United States citizens and residents affected by them. [2]

Distinction between Department of State decisions, USCIS decisions, and ICE/CBP immigration enforcement decisions

Consular nonreviewability specifically applies to decisions made by consular officers representing the United States in other countries, who are employees of the United States Department of State. It does not apply to decisions made by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

For many immigrant and non-immigrant visas, the approval of a petition or application from the USCIS is a prerequisite for obtaining the visa. However, the visa may be denied despite the USCIS application having been approved, and consular nonreviewability insulates such decisions from challenge. [2] For instance, in the case of Kerry v. Din (2015) the applicant whose visa was denied had gotten USCIS approval through a Form I-130 filed by his wife, but his visa was nonetheless denied and the United States government claimed that detailed explanation of the reason of denial was not necessary.

Consular nonreviewability also does not apply to decisions made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers when deciding whether to allow an alien to enter or not enter the United States at a designated port of entry, or to immigration enforcement actions taken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, in practice, the avenues of legal redress for the actions of these agencies are limited, owing to the plenary power doctrine.

Review and reconsideration within the Department of State

Consular nonreviewability does not mean that the Department of State cannot reconsider its immigration decisions. There are a number of avenues for redress within the Department of State for somebody whose visa is denied. [3]

Re-application and submission of additional information

Supervisorial review

The Code of Federal Regulations states that all non-immigrant visa denials should be reviewed by a supervisor. However, the Foreign Affairs Manual states that as many refusals as practical, but not fewer than 20%, should be reviewed, as soon as possible, but deferrable by up to 120 days if the applicant wishes to submit additional evidence. For immigrant visa applications, the review must take place as soon as administratively feasible (but within 30 days) unless the applicant wishes to submit additional evidence (in which case there is no time limit). Supervisorial review of 214(b) refusals (failure to establish non-immigrant intent) require the supervisor to re-interview the applicant. [3]

It may be possible to appeal a decision within a consulate

In some limited circumstances, the decisions of consular officers may be appealed within the consulate. However, there are no procedural guarantees of this.

Scope and exceptions

A few exceptions to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability have emerged over the years: [2] [4]

  1. The Mandel test, namely, that the consulate did not provide a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason for the rejection, and it might infringe on the constitutional rights of United States citizens.
  2. In cases where a consular officer rejects the application based on an underlying statute or regulation, it may sometimes be appealed on these two grounds:
    • Claims that the underlying statute or regulation being applied is unconstitutional.
    • Claims that the consular officer made a procedural error in applying the statute.

History

Since it almost by definition excludes judicial review, cases challenging the doctrine of consular nonreviewability are heard quite rarely in court. However, the doctrine has evolved somewhat in response to court challenges. [2] [4]

Post-Chinese Exclusion Act: The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889)

Some important precedents regarding judicial reviewability of immigration decisions were set in the aftermath of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and Immigration Act of 1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first federal immigration act to significantly affect migration flows, and the Immigration Act of 1882 gave enforcement teeth to this law by making immigration enforcement a federal matter. At this time, the determination regarding whether an alien could enter the United States was by the officer at the designated port of entry. When the officer decided not to admit the alien, the alien was generally detained on the vessel he or she had arrived on and then returned to his or her home country by the captain of the vessel. Since the vessel would generally be harbored in the United States prior to departure, the alien could file a writ of habeas corpus and have his or her refusal challenged in court, at least in principle. A few such cases shortly after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act helped delineate the scope of judicial review for decisions on whether to admit an alien.

The most significant case was Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), also called the Chinese Exclusion Case. Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese-born United States resident was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, in accordance with the Scott Act, which had passed after his departure to China but prior to his return arrival. He filed a lawsuit against the United States government, and lost. In its decision, the Supreme Court wrote that the power to exclude foreigners rested with the executive branch of the government, and any international grievances arising from this were the province of the political department of the government.

Other cases that occurred in subsequent years further strengthened the plenary power doctrine, though they related to the authority to deny entry and deport people and did not address consular decisions. These included Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895), and United States v. Ju Toy (1905).

Post-Immigration Act of 1924: London v. Phelps (1927) and Ulrich v. Kellogg (1929)

Prior to World War I, passports and visas were not necessary to enter the United States at a designated port of entry. In 1917 (during World War I), the United States Department of State and United States Department of Labor issued a joint order to diplomatic, consular, and immigration officers requiring that noncitizens have a passport and visa before seeking entry to the United States. [4] In 1918, these requirements were made long-term by the United States Congress. Initially, consular officers issuing visas did not check for grounds of inadmissibility; rather, they simply issued the visa and informed the applicant of potential grounds for inadmissibility, leaving the task of determining inadmissibility to the officer at the port of entry. [4] This led to the problem of people undertaking an expensive journey and then being rejected at the port of entry. In 1924, Congress enacted a provision requiring consular officers to make a determination of admissibility and issue the visa only if they were satisfied. [4] While the officer at the border still had final say on whether to admit the alien (i.e., the alien could be denied entry despite having a valid visa), the visa served an important prior screening and filtering role.

At the same time, the United States moved in the direction of more comprehensive restrictions on immigration from around the world. Specifically, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 restricted annual immigration from a country to no more than 3% of the population of people from that country in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910; the Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act) further reduced this to 2%. While this effectively limited immigration from most countries to lower than the levels at that time, the primary purpose of the law was to clamp down on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. It also significantly affected immigration from Africa and Asia.

The combination of the increased degree of immigration restriction and the shifting of immigration decisions towards consulates abroad gave consular decisions considerable significance.

Two cases in the immediate aftermath of the Immigration Act of 1924 have been cited as precedents for consular nonreviewability:

The Administrative Procedure Act (1946), Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), and reliance on the plenary power doctrine

Prior to 1946, there was no barrier in principle to judicial review of consular decisions, but there was no clear protocol in general for challenging decisions by government agencies in courts. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 changed this; Section 10 of the APA permitted judicial review for any person "adversely affected or aggrieved" by the actions of a government agency. [4] Also, Section 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 explicitly gave the courts jurisdiction over "all causes" arising under Title II of the statute. This meant that cases would be brought to the courts the decisions on which would help clarify their thinking on consular nonreviewability.

Courts' initial response to efforts to challenge consular decisions was to rely on the plenary power doctrine. The first decision establishing the plenary power doctrine in the post-APA era was Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950). According to the Knauff court, "whatever the procedure authorized by Congress, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." [1] [2]

In this case, Knauff, the alien wife of a citizen who had served for the United States in World War II sought admission to the United States (and would ordinarily have been eligible based on the War Brides Act), but was denied admission by the United States based on confidential information. The Attorney General denied a hearing, arguing that a hearing would reveal sensitive information that would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the Attorney General's decision, clarifying that the denial of entry to the alien wife was not unconstitutional, and that it is "not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a certain alien." [5]

Two other court decisions at the time played some role in establishing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability: [4]

Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972)

Kleindienst v. Mandel , 408 U.S 753 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody's entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

This action was brought to compel Attorney General Kleindienst to grant a temporary nonimmigrant visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician whom the American plaintiff-appellees, Ernest Mandel et al., had invited to participate in academic conferences and discussions in the US. The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism." Kleindienst had declined to waive ineligibility as he has the power to do under 212 (d) of the Act, basing his decision on unscheduled activities engaged in by the alien on a previous visit to the United States, when a waiver was granted.

Even though it upheld consular nonreviewability, the opinion offered in the Kleindienst v. Mandel case paved the way for potential challenges to consular decisions. Specifically, Kleindienst v. Mandel rejected judicial review because it ruled that the consulate had offered a "bona fide and facially legitimate" reason for rejecting the visa. This suggested that in cases where such a reason was not provided, the consular decision may be subject to judicial review. This criterion for whether a consular decision might be eligible for judicial review would come to be known as the Mandel test. [2]

Kerry v. Din (2015)

Kerry v. Din (576 U.S. 86) (2015) was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. The case was filed by Fauzia Din, a United States citizen who had arrived in the country as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000. In September 2006, she married Kanishka Berashk, a citizen of Afghanistan, who had worked as a civil servant under the Taliban regime. Din then submitted a Form I-130 petition to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, sponsoring Berashk under the Immediate Relative category. The petition was approved by the USCIS.

Berashk used the approved Form I-130 to apply for a visa to enter the United States. However, in June 2009, he was informed that his visa was denied; the stated reason for the denial was that he had provided material support to a terrorist but no further details were provided. Din filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arguing that the government denied her due process of law by depriving her of her "constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse." The District Court rejected her argument, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The United States appealed the reversal in the Supreme Court. Per the Mandel test, there were two questions at hand:

  1. Was a constitutional right of Fauzia Din, a United States citizen, infringed upon?
  2. Was the reason offered by the consulate for rejecting Berashk's visa "bona fide and facially legitimate" per Mandel?

The case was won by the United States, with the Supreme Court split in its opinion. Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, and Clarence Thomas wrote plurality opinions. Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito concurred.

Scalia's opinion rejected (1), i.e., he argued that the denial of a visa did not implicate a fundamental liberty interest, and that it differed from Loving v. Virginia in that the right to marriage was not being questioned. Kennedy's opinion differed from Scalia's in that he did not come to a definite conclusion regarding (1), but instead he rejected (2), arguing that even if Din's liberty was infringed upon, the reason explanation offered by the consulate for the denial (i.e., that Berashk had provided material support to a terrorist organization) fulfilled the government's obligations, and that further details were not required in cases where the application was denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.

Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion answering both (1) and (2) in the affirmative, in which he was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Breyer's dissent argued that forbidding people from living together did effectively impede the right to marry, and that the level of explanation offered for the denial was inadequate, similar to "telling a criminal defendant that he is accused of breaking the law."

Although Kerry v. Din upheld the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, legal commentators viewed it as not carrying much additional weight as a precedent since the decision was a plurality opinion. [6] [7] [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Green card</span> Lawful permanent residency in the United States

A green card, known officially as a permanent resident card, is an identity document which shows that a person has permanent residency in the United States. Green card holders are formally known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs). As of 2019, there are an estimated 13.9 million green card holders, of whom 9.1 million are eligible to become United States citizens. Approximately 65,000 of them serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

An L-1 visa is a visa document used to enter the United States for the purpose of work in L-1 status. It is a non-immigrant visa, and is valid for a relatively short amount of time, from three months to five years, based on a reciprocity schedule. With extensions, the maximum stay is seven years.

A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Although a K-1 visa is legally classified as a non-immigrant visa, it usually leads to important immigration benefits and is therefore often processed by the Immigrant Visa section of United States embassies and consulates worldwide.

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title IV: Protecting the Border aims to prevent terrorism in the USA through immigration regulations. The provisions of the title generally increase the difficulty of entering the country for those known to have, or suspected of having, terrorist intent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visa policy of the United States</span> Policy on permits required to enter the United States and its unincorporated territories

The visa policy of the United States consists of the requirements for foreign nationals to travel to, enter, and remain in the United States. Visitors to the United States must obtain a visa from one of the U.S. diplomatic missions unless they come from one of the visa-exempt or Visa Waiver Program countries. The same rules apply for travel to all U.S. states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands with additional waivers, while similar but separate rules apply to American Samoa.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody's entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in § 212(a)(28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

<i>Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft</i> Court case

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker, to apply a blanket ruling of the Creppy Directive in order to keep immigration hearings closed to the press and the public. The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.

There have long been ideological restrictions on naturalization in United States law. Nativism and anti-anarchism at the turn of the 20th century, the red scare in the 1920s, and further fears against communism in the 1950s each shaped United States nationality law. Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods and prior still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Form I-130</span>

Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative is a form submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services by a United States citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident petitioning for an immediate or close relative intending to immigrate to the United States. It is one of numerous USCIS immigration forms. As with all USCIS petitions, the person who submits the petition is called the petitioner and the relative on whose behalf the petition is made is called the beneficiary. The USCIS officer who evaluates the petition is called the adjudicator.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), better known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on May 13, 1889, that challenged the Scott Act of 1888, an addendum to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

The National Visa Center (NVC) is a center that is part of the U.S. Department of State that plays the role of holding United States immigrant visa petitions approved by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services until an immigrant visa number becomes available for the petition, at which point it arranges for the visa applicant(s) to take the visa interview at a consulate abroad. It is located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It was established on July 26, 1994, on the site of an Air Force base that was closed down by The Pentagon.

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, also known as the LIFE Act and as the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, along with its Amendments, made some changes to laws surrounding immigration for family members of United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, as well as people eligible for employment-based immigrant visas, in the direction of making it easier for family members and immigrant workers to move to and adjust status within the United States. It was passed on December 21, 2000, as title XI of Pub. L. 106–553 (text)(PDF).

Withdrawal of application for admission is an option that U.S. Department of Homeland Security might offer to an Arriving Alien whereby the alien chooses to withdraw his or her application to enter the United States, and immediately departs the United States. Unlike an order of removal, a withdrawal of application for admission does not create a bar to future entry.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Form I-140</span> I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker

Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker is a form submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) by a prospective employer to petition an alien to work in the US on a permanent basis. This is done in the case when the worker is deemed extraordinary in some sense or when qualified workers do not exist in the US. The employer who files is called the petitioner, and the alien employee is called the beneficiary; these two can coincide in the case of a self-petitioner. The form is 6 pages long with a separate 10-page instructions document as of 2016. It is one of the USCIS immigration forms.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court case that established the federal government's power to detain migrants at the border pending deportation. The Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, held that the Attorney General's continued exclusion of the unauthorized immigrant without a hearing does not amount to an unlawful detention, and the court may not temporarily admit such individuals into the United States pending arrangements for their departure abroad. Some consider the decision in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei as the Court's strongest statement of the plenary power doctrine as the power to permanently exclude noncitizens is based in U.S. sovereignty and largely immune from judicial control.

References

  1. 1 2 Johnson, Kevin (February 18, 2015). "Argument preview: The doctrine of consular non-reviewability – historical relic or good law?". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved September 29, 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dobkin, Donald. "Challenging the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability in Immigration Cases" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 18, 2015. Retrieved January 8, 2016.
  3. 1 2 Chodorow, Gary. "Options after a Consular Officer Denies Your U.S. Visa Application". U.S. & China Visa Law Blog. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Professors in Support of Respondent (Kerry v. Din)" (PDF). American Bar Association.
  5. ↑ "Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)". Justia . Retrieved September 29, 2015.
  6. ↑ Chodorow, Gary. "Kerry v. Din: Supreme Court Rules Embassy Need Not Tell U.S. Citizen Why Husband's Visa Denied". Law and Border. Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  7. ↑ Choi, Jungmin (November 18, 2015). "Doctrine of Consulate Nonreviewability After Kerry v. Din". Epstein Becker Green. Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  8. ↑ Kagan, Michael. "Plenary Power is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power!". Michigan Law Review . Retrieved January 16, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.