For many noncitizens, the road to U.S. citizenship starts when a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member files a visa petition on their behalf. Such was the case for Ala'a Hamayel, whose wife, Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition so that her husband could live lawfully in the United States with her and their children. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved Ms. Bouarfa's petition, providing Mr. Hamayel a pathway to lawful permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.

However, years later, USCIS revoked the petition, citing allegations that Mr. Hamayel's prior marriage had been fraudulent—a claim primarily based on testimony from Mr. Hamayel's ex-wife, which she subsequently recanted. Ms. Bouarfa is now challenging this revocation, arguing that the agency's decision was unjust.

The Supreme Court case, Bouarfa vs. Mayorkas, raises a critical question: Can visa petitioners seek federal court review of an agency's decision to revoke an approved visa petition? This case, while specific to the Hamayel family, holds broader implications for noncitizens and their families nationwide.

Presumption of Judicial Review

For decades, Supreme Court precedent has established that federal agency actions are presumptively reviewable by federal courts. This principle of judicial review ensures that agencies act within the law and that mistakes can be corrected. Under this framework, had USCIS initially denied Ms. Bouarfa's petition, she would have had the right to challenge that decision in federal court.

However, the government argues that the situation is different when the petition is revoked, claiming that such decisions fall under a statute barring federal-court review of certain discretionary immigration decisions. Specifically, the government points to a statute that blocks review of “any judgment regarding” certain forms of immigration relief and “any other decision or action” that the agency considers discretionary. According to the government, this language applies to USCIS's decision to revoke Ms. Bouarfa's petition, even though the agency's determination that Mr. Hamayel's prior marriage was fraudulent is not a discretionary decision.

The Stakes for Immigrants and Families

At the heart of this case is the question of accountability and fairness in immigration decisions. Immigration agencies are overburdened, and mistakes are not uncommon. Federal courts have historically played a critical role in correcting these errors. If the Supreme Court sides with the government's argument, it would close the doors of the federal courthouse to many individuals and families who seek to challenge agency errors.

The potential ramifications are severe. A ruling in favor of the government would prevent courts from reviewing even blatant constitutional violations, such as decisions based on racial or ethnic bias. Immigration agency decisions carry life-altering consequences, and the families affected deserve the opportunity for their cases to be heard in federal court.

What's at Stake in Bouarfa vs. Mayorkas

The outcome of Bouarfa vs. Mayorkas could set a dangerous precedent, where families like the Hamayels would be denied the chance to contest potentially erroneous and unjust decisions. If the Court adopts the government's sweeping interpretation of the statute, it would not only prevent review of the revocation of visa petitions but could also limit access to justice in a broad range of immigration matters. This would have devastating consequences for noncitizens, cutting off an essential lifeline for challenging unfair or incorrect government actions.

At Saluja Law, we believe that everyone deserves a fair day in court, especially in matters as consequential as immigration. Federal court review is essential to ensuring that immigration agencies are held accountable and that noncitizens are protected from arbitrary or erroneous decisions. The Supreme Court must preserve this vital check on government power to ensure fairness for noncitizens and their families.

We will be watching the outcome of Bouarfa vs. Mayorkas closely, as it will shape the future of immigration law and the rights of those navigating the complex U.S. immigration system.