The Supreme Court ruled December 10, 2024, in *Bouarfa v. Mayorkas*, a case that clarifies the standards for revoking spousal visa petitions when evidence emerges of prior marriage fraud. The decision addresses the tension between statutory requirements for approving visa petitions and the government's authority to revoke those approvals based on subsequent discoveries.
Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking permanent legal residence for her noncitizen spouse, Ala'a Hamayel. Under federal immigration law, USCIS "shall approve" a visa petition if it "determines that the facts stated in the petition are true" and that the noncitizen is the petitioner's spouse, according to 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b).
USCIS initially approved Bouarfa's petition, finding that she had met the statutory requirements. However, the agency's position changed dramatically two years later when it discovered evidence suggesting that Hamayel had previously entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws.
Federal immigration law contains what is known as the "sham-marriage bar" under § 1154(c), which requires denial of visa petitions if the noncitizen has previously sought or received an immigration benefit "by reason of a marriage determined by the Attorney General to have been entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws." This provision is designed to prevent individuals from exploiting marriage-based immigration benefits through fraudulent relationships.
Based on this new evidence, USCIS sent Bouarfa a Notice of Intent to Revoke its previous approval. The notice indicated that the agency believed her husband had engaged in a prior sham marriage, which would trigger the statutory bar to approval. Bouarfa vigorously contested the evidence and denied the allegations against her spouse.
Despite Bouarfa's objections, USCIS proceeded to revoke its prior approval of the visa petition. The agency relied on the Secretary of Homeland Security's statutory authority under § 1155, which permits revocation of "any petition" "for good and sufficient cause." This broad revocation power allows immigration authorities to reverse previously approved petitions when new information comes to light.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative body that hears appeals of immigration decisions, affirmed USCIS's revocation. The Board found that USCIS's determination regarding Hamayel's prior marriage fraud was sufficient to justify the revocation under the applicable legal standards.
The case then proceeded through the federal court system. Bouarfa appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The appeals court's handling of the case led to the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari and review the matter.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on October 15, 2024, before issuing its decision on December 10, 2024. The case presented important questions about the interplay between different sections of immigration law and the procedural safeguards that must be in place when the government seeks to revoke previously approved immigration benefits.
The decision has significant implications for how immigration authorities handle cases involving potential marriage fraud. The ruling affects the standards that USCIS must apply when evaluating whether to revoke spousal visa petitions based on evidence of prior fraudulent marriages. It also clarifies the procedural requirements that must be met before such revocations can occur.
For immigration practitioners, the decision provides important guidance on defending clients whose approved petitions face revocation proceedings. The case demonstrates the ongoing challenges in immigration law where initial approvals can be undone based on subsequent discoveries, even when the current marriage appears to be legitimate.
The ruling also highlights the complex statutory framework governing marriage-based immigration benefits. Immigration law seeks to facilitate legitimate spousal relationships while preventing fraud, creating a delicate balance that requires careful judicial interpretation when cases reach the appellate level.
The case reflects broader concerns about marriage fraud in the immigration system, which has been a persistent challenge for immigration authorities. The decision will likely influence how USCIS approaches similar cases involving allegations of prior marriage fraud and the standards of evidence required to support revocation decisions.
Moving forward, the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bouarfa v. Mayorkas* will serve as precedent for lower courts handling similar immigration disputes. The decision clarifies the legal framework that governs when and how immigration benefits can be revoked, providing greater certainty for both immigration authorities and individuals seeking family-based immigration benefits.