Rola Chehade v. Rex Tillerson

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROLA CHEHADE; RANA CHEHADE, No. 16-55236 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02219-DDP-JEM v. REX TILLERSON, United States MEMORANDUM* Secretary of State; ELIZABETH RICHARD, Ambassador, U.S. Embassy Lebanon; US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 12, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and LEITMAN,** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Matthew Frederick Leitman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. Rola and Rana Chehade appeal the dismissal of their challenge to the denial of Rana Chehade’s immigrant visa application, which was denied by a consular officer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B). Rana Chehade, an unadmitted and nonresident alien, has no constitutional right of entry and no cause of action for judicial review of her visa application’s denial. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972); accord Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) (plurality opinion) (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . has no right of entry into the United States, and no cause of action to press in furtherance of his claim for admission.” (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762)). Her daughter Rola Chehade, a United States citizen, alleges that the denial of her mother’s visa application implicates her own constitutional due process rights. Assuming without deciding that Rola Chehade has a protected liberty interest in her relationship with her mother that gives rise to a right to constitutionally adequate procedures in the adjudication of her mother’s visa application, and therefore that Rola Chehade may challenge the denial pursuant to the limited inquiry authorized by Mandel, the government’s notice of her mother’s visa denial satisfied due process. See Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Din, 135 S.Ct. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (finding that government’s notice satisfied due process without deciding whether United States 2 citizen had a protected liberty interest permitting her challenge to the denial of her spouse’s visa application). The consular officer provided a facially legitimate reason for denying the visa application by citing § 1182(a)(3)(B), a valid statute of inadmissibility. Din, 135 S.Ct. at 2140 (consular officer’s citation to § 1182(a)(3)(B) “suffices to show that the denial rested on a determination that Din’s husband did not satisfy the statute’s requirements,” and “the Government’s decision to exclude an alien it determines does not satisfy one or more of those [statutory] conditions is facially legitimate under Mandel”); Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1172 (9th Cir. 2016) (under two-part Din test, “[f]irst, the consular officer must deny the visa under a valid statute of inadmissibility” to provide a facially legitimate reason). The citation of § 1182(a)(3)(B) ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals