The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary holds broad authority to revoke visa petitions without judicial review. The decision in Bourfa v. Mayorkas strengthens DHS discretion under federal immigration law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion, affirming that under 8 U.S. Code §1155, the DHS secretary can cancel approved visa petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” The ruling came after Amina Bourfa’s 2015 petition to sponsor her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, was revoked in 2017. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) discovered that Hamayel had paid $5,000 to his ex-wife to aid his previous visa application.
The court’s opinion underscored that Congress explicitly granted the DHS secretary authority to revoke visa petitions “at any time,” and such decisions are not open to judicial review. This decision reaffirms DHS’s power in maintaining the integrity of the immigration process.
Currently, the Office of Homeland Security Statistics reports that 12.8 million legal permanent residents live in the U.S., with most entering through family sponsorship.
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, his nominee for DHS secretary, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, supports stricter immigration measures. Noem previously backed Trump’s travel ban and the proposal to end birthright citizenship. Tom Homan, Trump’s incoming border czar, praised Noem for her commitment to enforcing strong border policies.
During oral arguments in Bourfa v. Mayorkas, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the statutory language “good and sufficient cause” offers DHS significant discretion. The ruling solidifies DHS’s authority to make visa revocation decisions without interference from the courts.
