The question
Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Homeland Security's revocation of a previously approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. Section 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit and held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review this revocation. A revocation of an approved visa petition under Section 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination is a discretionary decision, so it falls within Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips courts of jurisdiction over actions left to the discretion of the agency. Section 1155 lets the Secretary revoke an approved petition at any time for good and sufficient cause, and nothing in the statute converts that discretionary revocation into a mandatory one.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
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. That broad authority commits the decision to agency discretion, so Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review. Section 1154(c) commands the agency only up to the point of approval and creates no ongoing duty to reconfirm a prior approval, so a sham-marriage-based revocation remains discretionary rather than mandatory.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that revocation of an approved visa petition under Section 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination is a discretionary decision within Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions left to the discretion of the agency.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1155 permits the Secretary to revoke a previously approved visa petition at any time for good and sufficient cause.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 1154(c)'s command to the agency extends only to the point of approval and creates no ongoing duty to reconfirm a prior approval.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup