CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 2002, Sandy Ghanem, a citizen of the United States, married Ayed Ghanem, a citizen of Jordan. Sandy filed an immigrant visa petition on behalf of Ayed, which authorities approved in 2004. Subsequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, initiated proceedings to revoke the visa and served her with notice of its intentions. After Sandy responded to the notice, CIS revoked the previously approved visa. The Ghanems appealed CIS’ decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA affirmed the decision to revoke without an opinion. The Ghanems filed a complaint for review of the revocation of the visa in district court. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the complaint and dismissed it. The Ghanems appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction to review any decision or action of the attorney general or the secretary of homeland security that is deemed discretionary in the same subchapter of the U.S. Code, other than the granting of relief under �1158(a). The sole issue on appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, is whether the decision to revoke a visa pursuant to 8 U.S.C. �1155 involved the exercise of discretion, thus stripping the court of jurisdiction to review the decision. Section 1155 provides that: “The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 1154 of this title.” The statutory language, the court stated, indicated that the decision to revoke an immigration visa is left to the discretion of the secretary of homeland security. The only language that indicates that the discretion could be limited, the court stated, is the “good and sufficient cause” phrase. When read in context and as a whole, the court stated that �1155 makes clear that Congress delegates to the secretary the decision to determine what constitutes good and sufficient cause. To suggest otherwise and create a judicial standard or “clarification” for good and sufficient cause, the court stated, would replace the secretary’s judgment with judicial oversight clearly not contemplated by the statute. OPINION:Benavides, J.; Reavley, DeMoss and Benavides, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.