Arias v. Noem, 5:22-cv-05248

Plaintiff Sloane Beatris Arias, a U.S. citizen, challenged the denial of her El Salvadoran husband's visa on grounds that he was allegedly affiliated with a gang, without detailed factual basis provided by the consular officer.
Mr. Sandoval was deemed permanently inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), with the embassy providing only generic references to a "thorough investigation" and relevant Foreign Affairs Manual sections, with no specific facts.
Arias sued, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and her Fifth Amendment due process rights; previously, the Fifth Amendment claim survived dismissal, while the APA claim did not.
The court initially relied on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Muñoz, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court, resulting in a stay of proceedings pending that decision.
Following the Supreme Court’s reversal in Muñoz, Defendants sought reconsideration; Arias sought reconsideration and to amend her complaint to raise new First Amendment and Accardi doctrine claims.
The court ultimately ruled on three motions: Defendants' motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff's cross-motion for reconsideration, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fifth Amendment Due Process	Arias argued her due process rights were violated by lack of a bona fide explanation for her husband’s visa denial.	Muñoz forecloses such a right; no fundamental liberty interest exists in spouse’s admission.	Claim dismissed; Muñoz dispositive—no constitutional right as a matter of law.
APA Reviewability	Arias sought reconsideration of the dismissal of her APA claim, arguing recent legal changes apply.	Consular nonreviewability still bars such claims post-Muñoz and Loper Bright.	Motion for reconsideration denied; APA claim remains dismissed as barred.
First Amendment Right to Receive Info	Arias sought to amend to add a claim that visa denial violated her First Amendment right to receive husband’s information in person.	No review allowed where exclusion is based on a facially legitimate, bona fide reason; Mandel and Muñoz foreclose.	Leave to amend granted; First Amendment claim may proceed—Mandel/Muñoz do not squarely foreclose.
Accardi Doctrine Violation	Arias alleged failure to follow agency rules deprived her of process to contest inadmissibility.	No regulation guaranteed such right to her or her spouse; no specific factual predicate required to be disclosed.	Claim denied; court finds no basis for Accardi claim as no rights guaranteed by rule/statute.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024) (Supreme Court: no fundamental liberty interest in citizen’s spouse’s admission to U.S.; consular nonreviewability reaffirmed)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (established facially legitimate and bona fide reason test for challenging executive exclusion decisions; left open First Amendment claims where no reason is given)