U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Immigration Cases
This article was prepared with the assistance of ABIL, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, of which Laura Danielson is an active member.
In the case of Kerry v. Din. Kanishka Berashk is an Afghani who formerly worked in the Taliban-controlled government as a payroll clerk. Due to a terrorism-related statute, he was denied a visa to enter the U.S. to live with his U.S. citizen spouse, Fauzia Din. The Supreme Court held that because Mr. Berashk is not a U.S. citizen, he had no right to a court review, and his U.S. citizen wife had no due process right to challenge the visa denial in federal court. This left the longstanding doctrine of consular absolutism untouched.
Mata v. Lynch. Noel Reyes Mata, an undocumented person from Mexico, was convicted of assault and put in removal proceedings. His original attorneys failed to submit an appellate brief and missed a deadline in filing a motion to reopen. The Supreme Court held that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear his case and decide whether those in removal proceedings can extend their deadlines.