The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case that has the potential to weaken a critical component of federal immigration law dramatically. At the center of the case is the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability.” The legal doctrine states that a consular official’s decision to refuse a visa to a foreign individual cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Proponents of the doctrine argue that the legal doctrine is essential to the smooth operation of our immigration system. Open borders advocates, meanwhile, contend that the doctrine should be relaxed on constitutional grounds and in favor of family unity.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE v. MUNOZ.
The case began when U.S. citizen Sandra Munoz contested the denial of an immigration visa for her Salvadoran husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, who had been living in the U.S. illegally. A consular officer denied Asencio-Cordero’s visa, citing his gang tattoos as evidence that he was a member of MS-13.
In July of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a previous district court ruling in favor of the federal government. The judges argued that the application of the consular nonreviewability doctrine violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 9th Circuit ruled that Ms. Munoz had “a fundamental liberty interest in their marriage” and “a liberty interest in residing in their country of citizenship.”
‘AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE.’
In a dissenting opinion, 9th Circuit Appellate Judge Patrick Bumatay noted that the “speedy-notice requirement will be an administrative nightmare. Now consular officers will have to sift through countless visa applications to determine who is entitled to the heightened notice by relation to some citizen.”
The government’s appeal of the 9th Circuit decision in Department of State v. Munoz will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 23.
show less
