Douglas Bourdon v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 940 F.3d 537

Douglas Bourdon, a U.S. citizen convicted in 2003 of possession of child pornography, filed an I-130 petition to sponsor his Vietnamese wife for immediate-relative status.
The Adam Walsh Act bars citizens convicted of specified offenses against minors from sponsoring immediate relatives unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in "sole and unreviewable discretion," determines the citizen poses "no risk."
USCIS requested evidence of rehabilitation, then denied Bourdon’s petition, stating he failed to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that he posed no risk and citing country reports it labeled "disturbing;" it did not provide Bourdon a chance to rebut those country reports.
Bourdon sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging (1) USCIS applied a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard instead of the preponderance standard (per Matter of Chawathe) and (2) USCIS denied his right to inspect and rebut derogatory information.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the Adam Walsh Act’s grant of "sole and unreviewable discretion" to the Secretary bars judicial review of both the no-risk determination and the agency’s decisionmaking process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may review USCIS’s use of a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard (vs. preponderance) in the no-risk determination	Bourdon: USCIS violated its own binding precedent (Chawathe) and APA by applying an impermissibly high standard; procedural challenge is reviewable	Government: Adam Walsh Act commits the no-risk determination and the process to the Secretary’s "sole and unreviewable discretion," precluding judicial review	Court: No jurisdiction; the Act bars review of both the process and outcome, including choice of burden of proof
Whether a court may review USCIS’s refusal to permit rebuttal of derogatory country reports relied on in the no-risk denial	Bourdon: 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(16)(i) gives right to inspect/rebut derogatory information; procedural defect is reviewable	Government: Allowing review would interfere with the Secretary’s unreviewable discretion over how to determine "no risk"	Court: No jurisdiction; refusal to provide rebuttal is part of the Secretary’s unreviewable decisionmaking process

Bremer v. Johnson, 834 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding limited review under Adam Walsh Act; interpreting "sole and unreviewable discretion")
Privett v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 865 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding no review of process under Adam Walsh Act via §1252 analysis)
Roland v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 850 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2017) (concluding courts lack authority to review USCIS’s beyond-a-reasonable-doubt practice)
Gebhardt v. Nielsen, 879 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2018) (same; interpreting Adam Walsh Act to preclude review)
Bakran v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 894 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2018) (concluding Adam Walsh bars review of the agency’s decisionmaking process)
Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 775 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2014) (authorizing judicial review for claims that an agency failed to follow its own regulations under a different INA provision; relied on in dissent)
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (Supreme Court: agencies must follow their own regulations; cited in dissent)
Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957) (Supreme Court: review of procedural compliance despite statutes granting broad discretion)