USCA11 Case: 22-12429 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 1 of 12 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12429 ____________________ AMINA BOUARFA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00224-WFJ-AEP USCA11 Case: 22-12429 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12429 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and PROCTOR,* District Judge. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires the Court to decide whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over a complaint about the revocation of the approval of a visa petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1155. The Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of certain discretionary immigration decisions. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Amina Bouarfa filed a petition to have her husband classified as her imme- diate relative so that he would be eligible to adjust his immigration status. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ap- proved the petition but later revoked that approval because Bouarfa’s husband had entered a previous marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws. Bouarfa sought judicial review of the Secretary’s marriage-fraud determination. The district court dis- missed her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction be- cause it determined that Bouarfa’s complaint challenged a discre- tionary decision. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Amina Bouarfa is a United States citizen. Her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, is not. In 2014, Bouarfa submitted Form I-130 to the * Honorable R. David Proctor, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 22-12429 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 3 of 12 22-12429 Opinion of the Court 3 Department of Homeland Security to petition to have Hamayel classified as her immediate relative for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(a)(1)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1) (2022). The Secretary has delegated many powers under the Act to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services within the De- partment. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 100.1 (2022); 6 U.S.C. § 271. The par- ties do not dispute the legal authority of the officials who dealt with Bouarfa’s petition. References in this opinion to the Secretary en- compass all officials relevant to Bouarfa’s petition. The Secretary approved the petition in 2015. Two years later, the Secretary notified Bouarfa of an intent to revoke the ap- proval of the petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (permitting the Secretary to revoke the approval of a petition). The Secretary stated that the Department had determined that Hamayel entered into one of his previous marriages solely for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Act prohibits the approval of a petition to benefit an alien who has entered a sham marriage. Id. § 1154(c)(2). Boaurfa responded to the notice and attempted to rebut the evidence the Secretary cited. Unpersuaded, the Secretary revoked the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals