Samira Hazama v. Rex W. Tillerson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4877
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Samira Hazama (U.S. citizen) filed I-130 for husband Ahmed Ghneim (Palestinian Authority citizen); USCIS approved the petition in 2011 but consular processing remained required.
- Ghneim interviewed at the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem; visa was denied on multiple grounds over time, including crimes involving moral turpitude, prior removal/unlawful presence, and finally terrorism under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i).
- The mandamus complaint (filed May 5, 2015) challenged only the terrorism finding; plaintiffs also sought APA relief and alleged the refusal was not "facially legitimate and bona fide."
- The district court dismissed, concluding review was precluded by Supreme Court precedent (Mandel and Din); the court did not reach the merits. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding denial was facially legitimate and bona fide and mandamus relief was not warranted; the court clarified the defect was on the merits, not jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may review consular visa denials affecting citizen's rights | Hazama argued she has a reviewable interest and denial should be examined | Government argued consular denials are presumptively nonreviewable under Mandel/Din | Court assumed arguendo Hazama had standing but declined plenary review; review limited to facial legitimacy and constitutional limits |
| Whether terrorism finding was "facially legitimate and bona fide" | Hazama: rock-throwing as a 13-year-old is minor and not terrorism | Government: record supports terrorism finding (conduct, context, admissions, background) | Held the terrorism ground was facially legitimate and bona fide; denial upheld |
| Adequacy of consular explanation for denial | Hazama: entitled to more reasoned explanation | Government: consulate provided a signed, detailed letter explaining grounds, precedent, and review process | Held the explanation was sufficient |
| Appropriateness of mandamus relief | Hazama sought mandamus to compel relief or review | Government argued mandamus standards not met and decision is review-limited | Held mandamus denied: plaintiffs failed to meet stringent mandamus criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (establishes limited review of consular visa denials when based on a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason)
- Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (addressed reviewability of consular denials where citizen rights are implicated; produced no majority on scope but acknowledged limits)
- Samirah v. Holder, 627 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses general nonreviewability of consular admission decisions)
- United States v. Vinyard, 529 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2008) (sets stringent standards for issuance of mandamus relief)
- Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) (discusses circumstances in which consular denials affecting citizens’ rights may be reviewed)