The Muñoz versus US Department of State was a court of appeals review of a ninth circuit ruling and we’re going to discuss two avenues. One, why it’s important, and two, if that helps your case.

This was an I-130 filing so it was a marriage-based relationship. There was a US citizen spouse and children and the other party, the beneficiary, had lived in the United States for 10 years or so and then exited the US in order to process that spousal visa.

The visa was denied and it took them three years to get a little more specificity as to the reason for that denial. That is somewhat common in that the consular posts will just state a statute that addresses maybe a certain type of inadmissibility or reason why they are not admissible.

Why is This Important?

One of the reasons why this is important is consular posts have been very notorious for relying on non-reviewability, meaning their decisions can’t be reviewed by a court. There are some exceptions to that and this case really gets to the heart of those exceptions. There are some exceptions to that reviewability and some of that being the non-reviewability is very broad. But if you have a liberty interest, which there are many fundamental rights; rights to raise your children, control of your children, and a liberty interest or a liberty right to marry who you want to marry and to be able to live in your country.

Also, the other thing that’s kind of an exception to that broad non-reviewability of a consular’s decision is that there be a legitimate and bona fide reason for denying that visa. The court found here that giving that reason, while it may have been bona fide at the time, three years later was maybe too long. There is a time frame there and as we know with everything in the law, everything is gray and it’s based on an argument on whether or not you would be successful at determining if that was reasonable or not.

But usually, in theory, somewhere around a year probably would be deemed to be admissible or reasonable. Definitely, the court found three years was not. That’s how and why this case is important. There’s a broad discretion on behalf of our officers in regards to immigration law but there is some reviewability with the courts.

Does This Help My Case?

For any type of law, it helps your case in theory. It’s a good reminder that there are limits to power, limits to discretion, and in hopes that it would keep everybody on the right playing field. However, for the average person, it’s going to be difficult to really effectuate if there is an issue that comes up at a consular post based on this decision because you essentially have to file a court case or a mandamus action or something in court that would then cause that consular post to kind of wake up and listen to past case reviews or past case decisions and that really is kind of broad with regard to any type of law.

The case law is only as good as whether or not you have the means and the time to be able to file a court case and get your argument heard. There are some limits to it. It’s a good reminder and really we kind of hope that those kinds of decisions will keep people on the right path to making decisions or being responsive in their roles but also know that the government of course has a very large litigation department and that they have lots of funds behind them whereas the average person may not necessarily have those means to be able to file things all the time to try to shake loose their case or to try to get a bona fide reason stated to them so that they can work to overcome that.

That’s why it’s so important and critical to make sure that you have good advice in the beginning to make sure if you are exiting the country, there are remedies and you understand the risks.