SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER
Stay in the loop! Subscribe to our newsletter and gain access to exclusive insights, trends, and news from the world of business and leadership. Don’t miss out!
The Supreme Court has decided to take up a case involving a Los Angeles man, Luis Acensio Cordero, who was denied a visa partly due to his tattoos.
The case, with potentially far-reaching consequences, revolves around constitutional rights related to marriage and due process.
Nine-Year Separation Prompts Legal Battle:
Luis Acensio Cordero has been separated from his wife, Sandra Muñoz, for nine years after his visa to return to the U.S. was denied.
The couple sued, alleging a violation of Muñoz’s constitutional rights to marriage and due process, prompting a legal battle that reached California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022.
Supreme Court Decision Limits Scope of Review:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case but has chosen to limit its review to the first two questions presented by the federal government in its appeal.
These questions focus on whether a consular officer’s visa denial impinges on the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen and whether notification of inadmissibility suffices as due process.
Potential Ripple Effects for Visa Denials:
The outcome of this case could have broader implications, particularly for immigrants challenging visa denials.
Legal experts suggest that if the Supreme Court sides with the Biden administration, it may impact the authority to justify blanket bans on individuals from certain countries, akin to policies seen during the Trump administration.
Acensio, residing in the U.S. unlawfully, married Muñoz in 2010. As part of the green card petition process, Acensio was required to undergo a consular interview in his native country, El Salvador.
The government denied his return, expressing concerns about potential unlawful activity. Acensio’s tattoos and alleged affiliation with the MS-13 gang were cited as contributing factors.
Consular Non-Reviewability Doctrine Challenged:
Consular officials invoked the doctrine of consular non-reviewability, arguing against the obligation to explain the visa denial.
The doctrine generally prevents judicial reviews of visa determinations made by consular officers unless the decision is “facially legitimate and bona fide.” However, exceptions exist when a U.S. citizen can demonstrate harm from the denial.
Alleged Gang Affiliation and Impact on Decision:
Details emerged during court proceedings, revealing that Acensio’s visa denial was influenced by an in-person interview, a criminal review, and an assessment of his tattoos.
The federal government claimed he was believed to be a member of MS-13, a Salvadoran criminal gang.
