526 F.Supp.3d 709
C.D. Cal.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Sandra Muñoz (U.S. citizen) and husband Luis Ernesto Asencio‑Cordero (El Salvador citizen) challenged the denial of Asencio‑Cordero’s immigrant visa after he left the U.S. in 2015.
- The Consulate denied the visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), citing a belief that Asencio‑Cordero was associated with MS‑13; defendants later identified tattoos and law‑enforcement information as bases for that belief.
- Plaintiffs submitted a gang‑expert declaration contesting that the tattoos indicated gang membership; Plaintiffs sought further factual explanation from the Department of State but received only a concurrence in the denial.
- Plaintiffs asserted six claims: lack of a bona fide factual reason, equal protection, separation of powers, bad faith, APA review, and that § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague.
- The parties conducted limited discovery and filed cross‑motions for summary judgment; the court held a telephonic hearing and treated counsel’s on‑the‑record statements about tattoos and law‑enforcement information as part of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the visa denial gave a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason under Mandel/Din | Muñoz: government gave only a statutory citation and no factual basis; hence denial not bona fide | DOS: citation to §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) plus consular reliance on tattoos and law‑enforcement identification of MS‑13 provided sufficient facial connection | Held: Government met the Din/Cardenas test—tattoos and law‑enforcement ID provided a facial connection; plaintiffs failed to show bad faith |
| Whether APA review or other judicial review is available for the consular decision | Muñoz: DOS action arbitrary and capricious under APA | DOS: consular nonreviewability bars APA review of merits | Held: APA claim dismissed; no separate APA avenue to review consular merits |
| Whether defendants acted in bad faith by withholding facts and refusing to disclose underlying law‑enforcement material | Muñoz: withholding shows bad faith and deprived opportunity to rebut | DOS: no evidence officer knowingly acted on false or improper grounds; disclosure beyond statute not required | Held: Plaintiffs failed to make the necessary affirmative showing of bad faith; no right to probe underlying evidence |
| Whether § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague (standing and merits) | Muñoz: statute is vague; they have standing to challenge | DOS: lack of standing and statute is not vague | Held: Court did not definitively decide standing but rejected vagueness as‑applied; statute not unconstitutionally vague on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (courts will not look behind executive visa denials that rest on a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason)
- Din v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurrence) (articulates two‑part test requiring valid inadmissibility statute and a factual predicate or facial connection)
- Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) (applies Din test; factual connection via arrest and interview sufficed for §1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) denial)
- Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2008) (U.S. citizen spouse has protected interest triggering limited review of consular denials)
- Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (recognizes plenary executive power to exclude aliens)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (discusses government need to provide statutory citation in visa/entry context)
- Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2019) (vagueness challenges evaluated as‑applied; predictive provisions not necessarily void for vagueness)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine overview)