Centeno v. Shultz
| Decision Date | 01 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2133,87-2133 |
| Citation | 817 F.2d 1212 |
| Parties | Romeo V. CENTENO and Bruce A. Coane, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. George P. SHULTZ, Secretary of State, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bruce A. Coane, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hays Jenkins, Jr., Frank A. Conforti, Asst. U.S. Atty U.S. Dept. of Justice, Houston, Tex., Richard M. Evans, Eloise Rosas, Attys., Office of Imm. Lit., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before GEE, RUBIN and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Romeo Centeno and Bruce Coane appeal from the district court's dismissal of their lawsuit against the appellees. Because we find that the consular officer's decision to deny Centeno a visa to enter this country was not reviewable by a federal court, we affirm the dismissal of the appellants' lawsuit.
Romeo Centeno, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for a visitor's visa to the United States on or around April 1, 1986. This application was denied by a consular official at the United States Embassy in Manila. Despite further efforts on behalf of Centeno by his brother-in-law, Bruce Coane, a United States citizen, no visa for Centeno was obtained. Acting on behalf of himself and Centeno, Coane filed a complaint against the appellees in United States District Court on July 17, 1986. The complaint alleged that the denial of Centeno's visa application was not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act, constituted arbitrary and capricious action, and violated Coane's first amendment rights. The appellants' complaint was dismissed by the district court on January 23, 1987.
Under Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), the denial of visas to aliens is not subject to review by the federal courts. 408 U.S. at 766, 92 S.Ct. at 2583. Where the statute under which the alien is excluded provides for a waiver of exclusion, the denial of the waiver is subject to only a minimal review by federal courts. Id. at 770, 92 S.Ct. at 2585. Such review is limited solely to the determination of whether a facially legitimate and bona fide reason exists for the denial of the waiver. Id. Since Centeno was denied a visa under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1184(b), 1 which does not provide for a waiver, however, the denial of his visa is not subject to any review by a federal court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Consulate of US, Barranquilla, Colombia
...559 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir.1977), or indeed the fact that a consular officer's decision was not authorized by the INA, see Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1005, 108 S.Ct. 696, 98 L.Ed.2d 648 (1988), does not entitle visa applicants to relief. Finally......
-
Jaraba v. Blinken
...of our government."). Accordingly, "the denial of visas to aliens is not subject to review by the federal courts." Centeno v. Shultz , 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Mandel , 408 U.S. at 766, 92 S.Ct. 2576 ).Most courts have held that this limitation on judicial review only app......
-
Udugampola v. Jacobs
...n. 3 (1st Cir.1990); United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317 (1950); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir.1987). 2. The applicant's wife became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on December 3, 2006. Am. Compl. ¶ 8. 3. A ......
-
Randall v. Meese
...the ordinary course, apply to a United States consular officer abroad for an immigrant visa. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 202(a) (1934); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th To reduce the hardship and inconvenience of this "depart and seek reentry" procedure, the Immigration Service devised a "......
-
Non-immigration visa fraud: proposals to end the misuse of the L visa by transnational criminal organizations as a method of illegal immigration.
...have no legal right to immigration. Therefore, there is no legal right to a review of the consul's decision. See Centeno v. Schultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir. (107.) See supra Part III.A. (108.) See supra notes 85-86 and accompanying text. (109.) See supra Part III.B. (110.) See House R......