Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: October 15, 2024
Decided: December 10, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas is a case concerning whether an individual can obtain judicial review regarding a revoked visa petition based on nondiscretionary criteria. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 10, 2024, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued on October 15, 2024.

The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the "[r]evocation of an approved visa petition under §1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions 'in the discretion of' the agency."[1] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether an individual can obtain judicial review regarding a revoked visa petition based on nondiscretionary criteria Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria."[2]
  • The outcome: The Court held that the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke an approved visa petition any time the Secretary determines that there is “good and sufficient cause.”[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: The case concerned the scope of judicial review for decisions to revoke approval of a visa petition based on nondiscretionary criteria made by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke an approved visa petition any time the Secretary determines that there is “good and sufficient cause."

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    • Judicial deference
    • Nondelegation
    • Executive control
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia
    See also: Judicial review

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]



    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[4]

    “ In 2014, Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, submitted Form I-130 to petition for her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, to be classified as her immediate relative under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Secretary approved the petition in 2015 but later notified Bouarfa of an intent to revoke the approval, stating that Hamayel had entered into a previous marriage solely to evade immigration laws. Despite Bouarfa’s response, the Secretary revoked the approval, and Bouarfa’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was unsuccessful.


    Bouarfa sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging the officials’ actions as arbitrary and capricious. The Secretary and Director moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the revocation decision was unreviewable because it was a discretionary action. The district court granted the motion, concluding that while the action was based on nondiscretionary criteria, the action itself was discretionary and thus that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 15, 2024.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's, holding that the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke an approved visa petition any time the Secretary determines that there is “good and sufficient cause." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    (a) Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary “may” revoke a previously approved visa petition “at any time” for what the Secretary deems “good and sufficient cause.” Such a broad grant of authority “fairly exudes deference” to the Secretary and is similar to other statutes held to “ ‘commi[t]’” a decision “‘to agency discretion.’ ” Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600. Congress did not impose specific criteria or conditions limiting this authority, nor did it prescribe how or when the Secretary must act. Context reinforces the discretionary nature of §1155. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s neighboring provision, §1252(a)(2)(B)(i), bars judicial review under specific provisions, each of which contains language indicating that the decisions involved are entrusted to the discretion of the Attorney General. Section 1155 contains similar language. Pp. 6–8...

    Unlike the discretionary determination at issue in Patel v. Garland, §1155’s revocation authorization has no “threshold requirements” to access the relevant discretion, id., at 332, 347, so Patel does not help Bouarfa. Finally, because the presumption that administrative action is subject to judicial review may be overcome by “ ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of congressional intent to preclude judicial review,” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. 221, 229, there is no need to resort to the presumption of reviewability where, as here, “the statute is clear,” Patel, 596 U. S., at 347. Pp. 11–12. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, ""BOUARFA v. MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY,"" December 10, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-583 Bouarfa v. Mayorkas," accessed April 29, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-583," accessed August 6, 2024
    4. ↑ Oyez, ""Bouarfa v. Mayorkas,"" accessed August 6, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 15, 2024
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 15, 2024
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bouarfa_v._Mayorkas&oldid=10374014"