Abdul Baaghil v. Stephen Miller
1 F.4th 427
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Khaled Abdo Ali Ahmed, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, filed an I-130 petition (2008) for his wife (Malekah Ali Al Wahasi) and two sons; USCIS approved the petition in 2011.
- Family applied for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates (Yemen, later Malaysia); consular officers developed identity concerns, placed applications in administrative processing, and requested further ID evidence.
- In November 2019 the Malaysian consulate denied the family’s visa applications and returned Ahmed’s approved I-130 to USCIS for review and possible revocation.
- Ahmed sought to amend an existing lawsuit to challenge the visa denials, challenge potential I-130 revocation (and attendant process), and obtain mandamus relief to force adjudication; the district court denied leave to amend as futile and dismissed the complaint.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: consular visa decisions are largely nonreviewable; Ahmed has no constitutional right to require admission of noncitizen family members; I-130 revocation and mandamus claims were unripe or lacked clear entitlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of consular visa denials | Ahmed argued consulate wrongly denied visas and courts may review because his own rights are implicated | Government argued consular non-reviewability bars merits review except limited review when citizen/resident rights implicated | Visa denials for wife/children nonreviewable; as to Ahmed, no constitutional right implicated to admit relatives; only facially legitimate reason review available and consulate gave one (identity concerns) |
| Substantive due process right to bring spouse/children | Ahmed claimed a liberty interest in admitting family members | Government: no deeply rooted, constitutional right to admission of noncitizen family members | No substantive due process right; long immigration practice forecloses recognizing such a right |
| Procedural due process / APA challenge to visa denials | Ahmed contended statutes/regulations created a liberty interest and consulate denied it without adequate process; APA allows review | Government: nonreviewability and statutes permit denial on identity grounds; APA does not override established limits on judicial review | Procedural claim fails because consulate provided a facially legitimate reason (identity concerns); APA does not circumvent consular non-reviewability |
| I-130 reconsideration / mandamus to compel adjudication | Ahmed sought to enjoin/mandamus USCIS to adjudicate or to prevent revocation without process; demanded 30-day adjudication | Government: revocation/reconsideration only pending; no statutory deadline; administrative backlog and no clear right to 30-day adjudication | Claims unripe because revocation/adjudication are speculative; mandamus denied as Ahmed lacks a clear right to immediate adjudication and adequate alternative remedies |
| Original mandamus for consular action | Ahmed requested mandamus to force consulate to rule on visas | Government: consulate ruled on visas (denials) before relief granted | Original mandamus claim is moot because Ahmed received the requested ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (courts generally defer to Executive on visa decisions and will not look behind a facially legitimate reason)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (admission and exclusion of aliens is a political question largely immune from judicial control)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (recognizing limited judicial review of executive visa/exclusion decisions and upholding facially legitimate national-security justification)
- Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) (plurality holding that denying a visa to a spouse did not necessarily implicate a constitutional right; concurrence limits review to facially legitimate reasons)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend complaint may be denied as futile)
- Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2006) (rejecting substantive and procedural due process claims based on discretionary visa denials)
- Almario v. Attorney General, 872 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1989) (no constitutional right for resident to force admission of noncitizen spouse)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (APA does not provide review of consular visa merits decisions)