Singh v. Tillerson
271 F. Supp. 3d 64
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Nirmal Singh, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, challenges denials of immigrant visas for his wife and four children by the U.S. Consulate in New Delhi.
- An employer petition for Singh's family was approved in 2004; Singh obtained LPR status in 2008 and an I-824 follow-to-join approval in 2009.
- Family members faced visa denials in 2011 and again after interviews in 2013 and January 17, 2017; the 2017 denials cited 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (fraud/misrepresentation) for the children and 1182(a)(6)(E) (aiding/abetting) for the wife.
- Singh filed suit seeking remand and issuance of visas or a factual determination of eligibility; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The district court considered whether the limited exception to consular nonreviewability (for asserted constitutional rights) applied and whether the consular explanations were facially legitimate and bona fide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot because consulate provided written denials/factual explanations | Singh contends he still has live claims (due process violation) despite receiving letters | Defendants argue written determinations supply the factual relief sought, rendering claims moot | Mootness: court treated the factual determinations as having been provided and noted mootness as to that relief, but proceeded to analyze jurisdictional issues in the alternative |
| Whether Singh has a protected liberty interest triggering review of consular visa denials | Singh asserts family liberty (and an asserted employment-related liberty) entitles him to review | Defendants assert consular nonreviewability bars review absent a recognized constitutional right | Held: court rejects any employment-based liberty interest; family liberty not sufficiently implicated here (adult children; marriage not extinguished by denial) — no jurisdiction under the narrow exception |
| Scope of review if constitutional interest implicated (facially legitimate and bona fide standard) | Singh argues consular denials must be shown not bona fide by proving bad faith | Defendants argue the consular citations to statutory inadmissibility are facially legitimate; plaintiff must plausibly allege bad faith | Held: even assuming reviewable, the consular letters cite specific statutory grounds and evidentiary bases (school records, medical reports, application inconsistencies); plaintiff pled no plausible bad faith for 2017 denials; denials satisfy the Mandel/Din standard |
| Whether the consular nonreviewability doctrine forecloses district court jurisdiction | Singh urges exception for due process/family rights | Defendants rely on longstanding doctrine insulating consular visa decisions from judicial review | Held: doctrine of consular nonreviewability controls; plaintiff's claims fall outside the narrow exception and thus dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial review of visa denials limited to whether denial rests on a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason)
- Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (Sup. Ct.) (Kennedy concurrence reiterating Mandel standard; government meets standard by citing statutory basis)
- Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir.) (D.C. Circuit authorizes limited inquiry into facial legitimacy and bona fides when constitutional rights are asserted)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir.) (INA confers consular officers exclusive authority over visa applications; consular nonreviewability principle)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (Sup. Ct.) (courts generally may not review political branches' determinations to exclude aliens)