Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court hears arguments in Buarfa v. Mayorkas over review of visa-petition revocations
Summary
At oral argument in Buarfa v. Mayorkas, the Court debated whether an agency's revocation of an approved visa petition after a sham-marriage finding is discretionary (and therefore outside judicial review under 12 52) or nondiscretionary under 11 54 c and subject to review. Counsel for the petitioner stressed harms from delay and loss of priority dates; government counsel defended the statutory review bar.
At oral argument in Buarfa v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court considered whether revocation of an approved visa petition after a finding of a sham marriage is a discretionary agency act shielded from judicial review or a nondiscretionary correction that courts may review.
Petitioner's counsel argued that Section 11 54 c's language — "no petition shall be approved if the beneficiary engaged in a sham marriage" — should be read to prevent an approval from persisting once the agency later finds a sham marriage. "If Congress believed you shouldn't get that piece of paper saying that you're eligible when you've been in a sham marriage, then the agency has to take it away when it determines that you're not, in fact, eligible," counsel said, urging that revocation is nondiscretionary and therefore reviewable.
The petitioner pressed the practical stakes: a revoked petition can cost years and the loss of a priority date in categories with limited visa numbers, potentially delaying relief by a decade or more. Counsel argued that requiring a…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat