Anthony Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312

Anthony Sesay (U.S. citizen) petitioned for immigrant visa for his daughter, Mabinty Sesay (Sierra Leone citizen); petition approved and daughter interviewed at U.S. Consulate in November 2017.
Consular officer suspected misstatement of age and requested educational records (school exam index number) to verify age; additional documents were submitted in December 2017 but allegedly insufficient.
Government informed plaintiffs the application was denied in November 2017 under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) for failure to provide required documentation and later (May 3, 2018) denied under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for material misrepresentation (false passport and lying about age).
Plaintiffs filed an April 2018 suit seeking adjudication (mandamus); after receiving notice of denial they voluntarily dismissed that suit but filed a new action; district court dismissed the new suit on consular nonreviewability grounds.
District court found the government provided a "facially legitimate and bona fide" statutory basis for denial and plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege consular bad faith; plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the consular decision is shielded from judicial review absent a clear statutory directive or an affirmative showing of bad faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may review a consular visa denial that arguably burdens a U.S. citizen's constitutional interests	Sesay: denial implicates his rights and courts should review factual basis	U.S.: consular nonreviewability bars review except as narrowly allowed by Mandel/Din	Held: Doctrine bars review in absence of statutory authorization or demonstrated bad faith; Mandel narrow exception applies but is limited
Whether the government met the "facially legitimate and bona fide" standard	Sesay: statutory citation alone and summary explanation are insufficient; factual inquiry required	U.S.: citation of statutes (§1201(g), §1182(a)(6)(C)(i)) plus officer’s factual explanation satisfies the standard	Held: Government satisfied the standard by citing statutory bases and describing officer’s findings
Whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged consular bad faith to permit review	Sesay: delays, document exchanges, and outcome indicate bad faith	U.S.: allegations are conclusory; requests for documents show due diligence, not bad faith	Held: Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead bad faith; dismissal affirmed

Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (establishing courts generally may not review executive exclusion of aliens)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (recognizing narrow review when a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights are implicated)
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (articulating "facially legitimate and bona fide" standard for visa denials)
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (reaffirming that a statutory citation can satisfy the government's explanatory duty for a visa denial)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (political branches have primary authority over immigration policy)
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (deference to executive expertise on foreign and immigration matters)
Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 961 F.3d 635 (4th Cir.) (discussing and applying the limited-review framework)