Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Opinion Summary: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided: 12/10/24 | Case No. 23-583
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Opinion Summary: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided: 12/10/24 | Case No. 23-583
Case Info: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided: 12/10/24 | Case No. 23-583
Link to Docket: Here.
Question Presented: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
Holding: Revocation 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.
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. No justice filed a concurring or dissenting opinion.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioner: Samir Deger-Sen, New York, N. Y.
- For respondents: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.
Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.
View all episodes
By SCOTUS Oral ArgumentsCase Info: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided: 12/10/24 | Case No. 23-583
Link to Docket: Here.
Question Presented: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
Holding: Revocation 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.
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. No justice filed a concurring or dissenting opinion.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For petitioner: Samir Deger-Sen, New York, N. Y.
- For respondents: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.
Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.