The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) has broad authority to cancel visa applications without judicial review.
In the decision regarding Brufa vs Mayorkasthe court unanimously granted the Commissioner the discretion to cancel approved immigration applications “if he or she determines that there is good and sufficient cause.” 8 United States Code (USC) §1155Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said: court opinion.
The case involved Amina Bourfa, who applied in 2015 to sponsor her husband Alaa Hamael, a Palestinian citizen, for permanent U.S. residency. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved the application, but later canceled it in 2017. discover The court opinion said Hamael had previously paid his ex-wife $5,000 to facilitate the visa process.
The court’s order said Congress has given the Secretary the power to cancel visa applications “at any time” and that such decisions are not subject to judicial challenge. (Related: ‘Big win’: Trump-appointed judge temporarily closes door to Obamacare for DACA recipients)
Ending birthright citizenship would be a major step toward stopping illegal immigration. President Trump will make that happen. https://t.co/xaUP3C3dRQ
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 8, 2024
Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) reported As of January 2024, an estimated 12.8 million lawful permanent residents lived in the United States, more than two-thirds of whom entered the country as immediate family members of U.S. citizens.
Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who was nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to be DHS secretary, is a leader in implementing stricter immigration policies, including then-President Trump’s travel ban on countries with a history of terrorism and a proposal to abolish birthright citizenship. is advocating for
President-elect Tom Homan, the border czar, praised Noem’s selection, calling her a “quick learner” who understands border issues. According to to the New York Post.
The Supreme Court argued that Brufa vs Mayorkas In October. Justice Samuel Alito said the “adequate and sufficient” language “provides the broadest discretion imaginable.” Oral argument.
