Amina Bouarfa v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 75f4th1157

Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 petition in 2014 to classify her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, as an immediate relative; USCIS approved the petition in 2015.
In 2017 USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke and then revoked the I-130 approval, citing a Department determination that Hamayel’s prior marriage was entered solely to evade immigration laws (marriage-fraud under 8 U.S.C. §1154(c)(2)).
Bouarfa responded administratively and appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals; the BIA denied relief.
Bouarfa sued in district court alleging the revocation was arbitrary and capricious and seeking vacatur and mandamus; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
The district court dismissed, concluding §1155 revocations are discretionary and not reviewable; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Bouarfa argued the underlying marriage-fraud determination is a non‑discretionary, reviewable statutory predicate and therefore subject to judicial review despite the discretionary revocation context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1252 bars judicial review of a revocation under §1155	Bouarfa conceded revocation is discretionary but argued review should be allowed of the underlying merits	Defendants: §1155 revocation is discretionary and §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review	Held: Revocation under §1155 is discretionary and not reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Whether the marriage‑fraud determination (application of §1154(c)) is reviewable when made as the basis for a §1155 revocation	Bouarfa: the marriage‑fraud finding is a non‑discretionary statutory eligibility determination and would be reviewable if made in a denial, so it remains reviewable here	Defendants: even if the fraud finding relates to statutory eligibility, when invoked as the basis for a discretionary §1155 revocation it is subsumed by the jurisdictional bar	Held: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the underlying marriage‑fraud determination as made in the context of a §1155 discretionary revocation

Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes reviewable statutory eligibility determinations from unreviewable discretionary decisions)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (presumption favoring judicial review rebuttable by clear congressional intent)
Brasil v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 28 F.4th 1189 (11th Cir. 2022) (claims that agency reached the wrong discretionary outcome are barred)
Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (procedural defects in discretionary proceedings can be reviewable)
Bernardo ex rel. M & K Eng’g, Inc. v. Johnson, 814 F.3d 481 (1st Cir. 2016) (holds §1155 revocation discretionary)
Nouritajer v. Jaddou, 18 F.4th 85 (2d Cir. 2021) (same)
Jilin Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Chertoff, 447 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) (same)
El‑Khader v. Monica, 366 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2004) (same)