Supreme Court Limits Immigration Oversight

The Supreme Court decided that federal courts lack the power to examine specific discretionary choices made by immigration agencies, indicating a major change in judicial supervision of immigration issues. In an unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court determined that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) possesses extensive power to cancel visa petitions without court oversight, even if the cancellation is predicated on allegations of marriage fraud. The court determined that this authority is not subject to judicial review under a federal law that restricts court oversight of specific discretionary choices. The lawsuit was initiated by Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, who submitted a visa petition for her spouse, Ala’a Hamayel, a Palestinian citizen. The request was first accepted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but after two years, the agency sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke the request. USCIS referenced accusations that Hamayel had earlier engaged in a fraudulent marriage to gain immigration advantages—a assertion supported by comments from Hamayel’s ex-spouse. Although Bouarfa disputed these assertions, the agency proceeded with the cancellation. Bouarfa contended that USCIS’s actions were random and unreasonable, but the Supreme Court decided that the power to cancel visa petitions fell completely within DHS’s authority. The decision may have significant consequences for immigrants pursuing permanent legal status in the U.S. Opponents claim that it diminishes accountability and permits immigration agencies to operate with little supervision. Legal analysts indicate that the ruling underscores an increasing trend of judicial respect for executive branch authority in immigration issues.