Case: 17-15787 Date Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 1 of 42 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15787 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80207-RLR DOUGLAS BOURDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, Secretary of DHS, LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director of the USCIS, TONY BRYSON, District Director, District 10, USCIS, LAURA CASTILLO, Acting Field Office Director, West Palm Beach Field Office, USCIS, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 3, 2019) Case: 17-15787 Date Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 2 of 42 Before JORDAN, GRANT, and BALDOCK,∗ Circuit Judges. GRANT, Circuit Judge: Douglas Bourdon, a United States citizen, sought to bring his wife, a Vietnamese citizen, here to the United States under a program that allows sponsorship of close relatives. But a problem presented itself: Bourdon had been convicted of possession of child pornography, which put him outside the bounds of the visa-sponsorship program unless he could show that he posed no risk to his wife. This he could not do—at least not according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, which under a statute known as the Adam Walsh Act has “sole and unreviewable discretion” to determine if citizens like Bourdon pose “no risk” to their foreign relatives. Bourdon sued, alleging that Immigration Services violated the Administrative Procedure Act in two ways: when it used a beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard rather than a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to evaluate his petition, and when it did not allow him to offer rebuttal evidence. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it had no jurisdiction to review Bourdon’s administrative objections to the process behind the no-risk decision. We affirm; courts lack jurisdiction to review either the process or the outcome of the no-risk decision. I. We begin by providing a brief background of the immigration procedures and rules at issue. Generally, by filing an I-130 petition, “any citizen of the United ∗Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 17-15787 Date Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 3 of 42 States” can request that the Attorney General recognize a foreign national family member, like a spouse or child, as an “immediate relative.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). In response to that request, “the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative,” approve the petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). The foreign national can then enter the United States without regard to numerical limits on immigration. Id. § 1151(b). But Congress created an exception to that allowance in 2006 when it passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. According to that Act, the general rule permitting a U.S. citizen to petition for foreign family members to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals