Salla v. Mayorkas

Background

Rasiklal Bhuralal Salla sought a court order requiring Alejandro Mayorkas and the other respondents to reinstate his visa and permit him to enter the United States. According to the amended complaint, Salla is an Indian national who sought to travel to the United States for his son’s wedding. He alleged that immigration authorities had arbitrarily and capriciously revoked his visa years earlier and denied him entry. He said the wedding had been delayed until he could attend.

The respondents moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (3), and (6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim, while the other provisions concern specified threshold defenses. The respondents argued, among other things, that the court could not review the visa decision under the consular-nonreviewability doctrine.

The Court’s Analysis

Judge Subramanian explained that the Supreme Court has treated the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals as an executive-branch decision generally immune from judicial control. The court noted that the Supreme Court had recently clarified that consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional rule; instead, the court treated it as a merits issue. The court stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize judicial review of a consular officer’s visa denial and that the same principle applies to visa revocations.

The court recognized that the Supreme Court has assumed a narrow exception when a visa denial allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a United States citizen. But the court stated that Salla, as an unadmitted and nonresident foreign national, had no constitutional right to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.

Salla appeared to rely on the rights of his son and his son’s future spouse. The opinion states that the son is a permanent resident and the future spouse is a citizen. The court applied the general rule that a person usually must assert his or her own legal rights rather than the rights of third parties. An exception requires a close relationship with the person who holds the right and a barrier preventing that person from protecting the right. The court found that Salla had not shown any such barrier.

The court added that, even if Salla could assert his relatives’ rights, they likely would not establish a legally protected interest. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedent, the court stated that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse’s admission to the country. The court reasoned that it would therefore appear even less likely that a citizen or permanent resident has a fundamental liberty interest in the admission of a noncitizen future father-in-law or father to attend a wedding. Salla did not describe or support a fundamental liberty interest that was deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions.

Disposition

The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 28 and the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.