From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivera De Gomez v. Kissinger

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Apr 14, 1976
534 F.2d 518 (2d Cir. 1976)

Summary

holding that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Second Circuit preclude judicial review of a consular decision not to issue a visa

Summary of this case from Acao v. Holder

Opinion

No. 899, Docket 76-6009.

Argued April 12, 1976.

Decided April 14, 1976.

Antonio C. Martinez, New York City (S. Bernard Schwarz, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Mary P. Maguire, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Before LUMBARD, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.


Marcelina Diaz Rivera de Gomez, a United States citizen, brought this action against the Secretary of State, the Director of the Visa Office of the Department of State, the United States Consul at Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the New York District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that her marriage to Cecilio Trifilio Gomez-Tejada is valid and an order enjoining the defendant Consul from denying Gomez-Tejada's application for an immigrant visa on the basis of the invalidity of that marriage. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, J., granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the action, holding that "This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the acts of American consular officials abroad in determining whether or not to issue a visa." Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction under section 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1329.

This precise issue was recently before the district court in Pena v. Kissinger, 409 F.Supp. 1182 (S.D.N.Y., 1976). We agree with the reasoning and result of Judge Pollack in that case, and conclude that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), and of this court in Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910, 96 S.Ct. 1105, 47 L.Ed.2d 313, 44 U.S.L.W. 3471 (1976), preclude any judicial review of the consular decision not to issue a visa in this case. We reject the argument that section 279 authorizes the sort of judicial interference in the visa-issuing process sought by plaintiff.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.


Summaries of

Rivera De Gomez v. Kissinger

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Apr 14, 1976
534 F.2d 518 (2d Cir. 1976)

holding that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Second Circuit preclude judicial review of a consular decision not to issue a visa

Summary of this case from Acao v. Holder

affirming the district court's holding that it "lacks jurisdiction to review the acts of American consular officials in determining whether or not to issue a visa"

Summary of this case from Foad v. Holder

affirming the district court's holding that it "lacks jurisdiction to review the acts of American consular officials abroad in determining whether or not to issue a visa"

Summary of this case from Sharif v. Kerry

affirming district court determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue "an order enjoining the defendant Consul from denying [plaintiff's] application for an immigrant visa" and holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1329 does not "authorize[] the sort of judicial interference in the visa-issuing process sought by plaintiff"

Summary of this case from Khanom v. Kerry

affirming district court determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue “an order enjoining the defendant Consul from denying [plaintiff's] application for an immigrant visa” and holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1329 does not “authorize the sort of judicial interference in the visa-issuing process sought by plaintiff”

Summary of this case from Khanom v. Kerry

affirming the district court's holding that it "lacks jurisdiction to review the acts of American consular officials abroad in determining whether or not to issue a visa"

Summary of this case from Morales v. Goldbeck

rejecting plaintiff's contention that Section 279 of the INA provides federal courts jurisdiction to interfere with the visa-issuing process

Summary of this case from Morales v. Goldbeck
Case details for

Rivera De Gomez v. Kissinger

Case Details

Full title:MARCELINA DIAZ RIVERA DE GOMEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HENRY A…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Apr 14, 1976

Citations

534 F.2d 518 (2d Cir. 1976)

Citing Cases

Morales v. Goldbeck

As such, district courts have no jurisdiction to review a consular official's decision to deny a visa to a…

Martinez v. Bell

In the alternative they assert that since the relief sought by the plaintiffs would interfere with the visa…