Calvary Albuquerque v. Blinken, 136 F.4th 1217

Background

Stefan Green, a South African citizen, applied for an R-1 visa to work as a worship leader at Calvary Albuquerque, Inc., a church in New Mexico.
While previously in the U.S. on a B-1/B-2 visitor visa, Green led worship at Calvary and received honoraria, which he and Calvary characterized as religiously motivated compensation.
The initial R-1 petition was approved by USCIS, but the consular officer denied the visa application, citing misrepresentation (for engaging in employment while on a visitor visa) and concerns over immigrant intent.
Calvary sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), arguing that the visa denial substantially burdened its religious exercise, including its belief in compensating ministers.
The district court dismissed the suit citing the consular nonreviewability doctrine, holding that RFRA does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular visa denials and that the visa denial was based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.
Calvary appealed, focusing on whether RFRA authorizes judicial review of consular officer decisions affecting religious exercise.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does RFRA expressly authorize judicial review of consular visa denials?	RFRA applies to all federal law and its cause-of-action provision expressly authorizes claims against government actors, thereby permitting review.	RFRA does not specifically or unmistakably authorize judicial review of consular decisions, and longstanding doctrine bars such review absent clear Congressional directive.	No, RFRA does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers’ visa decisions.
Does the constitutional claim exception allow more searching judicial review when rights are burdened?	RFRA claims should be treated like constitutional claims, allowing judicial review at least to evaluate legitimacy and good/bad faith of the consular action.	The exception is very narrow; courts may only confirm the officer cited a facially legitimate, bona fide reason, and may not, absent plausible bad faith, look deeper.	The consular officer provided a facially legitimate, bona fide reason (misrepresentation), and no plausible bad faith was alleged.
Did the consular officer act in bad faith in denying the visa?	Consular officer disregarded evidence and relied on a technical, unreasonable interpretation of religiously motivated compensation.	Officer cited Mr. Green’s apparent unauthorized employment and had a reasonable factual basis under the governing regulations.	No affirmative showing of bad faith was made; allegations were insufficient to proceed.
Did the district court err in denying a preliminary injunction?	Calvary argued irreparable harm and that preliminary relief was warranted if their RFRA claim was cognizable.	The government argued no viable claim existed and irreparable harm was not shown.	Moot, as the underlying claim was dismissed; even if not moot, denial was upheld due to insufficient irreparable harm showing.

Key Cases Cited

Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024) (confirms federal courts generally cannot review consular visa denials except when expressly authorized by law or for narrow constitutional challenges)
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) (reaffirmed consular nonreviewability and set standard for facially legitimate and bona fide reasons)
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (set forth ‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’ standard for visa denials challenged on constitutional grounds)
United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (described finality and nonreviewability of consular officers’ exclusion decisions)
Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892) (early authority on executive discretion and judicial deference in immigration)
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) (recognized executive/legislative authority over admissibility and exclusion of noncitizens)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (discussed scope and purpose of RFRA)
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (emphasized deference to executive in foreign affairs contexts)