Basic HTML Version

|  | Table of Contents |  | View Full Version

Page 47 - The Indian EYE 091126
P. 47

    IMMIGRATION                                                       SEPTEMBER 11, 2026       |  The Indian Eye 47

            stated that the “Nationality-Based Pause   lenges to the lawfulness of agency policies   try ban. It is a reminder that, even in im-  enacted and exceeded the Secretary’s law-
            cannot be fairly read as implementing   governing visa issuance are different from   migration law, where executive author-  ful authority.
            the public-charge provision,” and instead   attempts to overturn individual consular   ity can be broad, Congress still controls   Nationals of the listed countries may
            found that the policy contravened other   determinations in particular cases.  the  legal  framework  for  visa  issuance.  no longer be refused immigrant visas
            INA provisions, especially the nationali-  The court vacated the policy under   The broader significance of the deci-  solely because of the 75-country nation-
            ty-discrimination rule and the visa-refusal   § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Pro-  sion is that it reaffirms several basic lim-  ality-based pause. On the other hand, a
            rules. The court’s objection was not that   cedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and   its on executive control over immigrant   separate 39-country security-based ban
            the administration applied public-charge   ordered that any immigrant visa refusal   visa issuance. Congress placed consular   implemented through a Presidential Proc-
            rules too aggressively. It was that the   based solely on the policy be set aside and   officers  at  the  center  of  immigrant  visa   lamation under INA § 212(f) remains in
            government used public-charge rheto-  remanded for further proceedings consis-  adjudication, required visa refusals to rest   effect. Although the two measures overlap
            ric as the rationale for a different kind of   tent with the opinion. At the same time,   on recognized legal grounds, prohibited   in part, they are distinct policies. Accord-
            measure entirely: a categorical nationali-  the court limited that relief to policy-based   discrimination in immigrant visa issuance   ingly, the ruling’s practical effect is great-
            ty-based immigrant-visa ban that the stat-  refusals. Refusals supported by other valid   based on nationality and related classifica-  est for nationals whose eligibility was re-
            utory scheme does not authorize.  grounds were not disturbed. That reme-  tions, and withheld from the Secretary of   stricted only by the 75-country pause. For
                The court’s analysis of Secretary Ru-  dy reflects the logic of the opinion itself:   State the power to dictate which individ-  nationals who remain subject to the sepa-
            bio’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a)   the court did not say that immigrant visa   ual visa cases must be granted or denied.   rate 39-country security-based restriction,
            was equally important. Although the   applicants from the listed countries were   By replacing case-by-case adjudication   the vacatur of the 75-country pause does
            Secretary of State has broad authority to   automatically entitled to visas, but it did   with a blanket, nationality-based ban, the   not, by itself, eliminate any independent
            administer immigration laws through dip-  hold that the government could not law-  75-country policy conflicted with each of   restrictions that continue to apply under
            lomatic  and  consular  channels,  the  INA   fully  use  this  nationality-based  policy   those limits. For that reason, the court   the proclamation.
            reserves to consular officers the functions   to deny them. That is why the decision   concluded that the policy was incompat-   * Damira Zhanatova is an Associate at
            relating to the granting or refusal of visas.   matters beyond this particular 75-coun-  ible with the statutory scheme Congress   Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.
            The court concluded that the January   ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
            2026 cable crossed that line because it did   Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D. Mehta
            not merely guide officers in how to apply
            existing law. It commanded them to reach   & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s EB-5 Com-
            a predetermined result. As the opinion   mittee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental Disciplinary
            put it, the policy “overrides consular dis-
            cretion and decision-making and dictates   Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigration; board member
            whether immigrant visas shall be granted
            or denied.” That, the court held, exceeded   of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition.  Mr. Mehta is the former chair of the
            the Secretary’s lawful role.      Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on Immigration and Nationality
                The court also rejected the govern-
            ment’s threshold arguments that the case   Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various immigration-related issues, including
            could not be heard at all. It concluded that   on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches a course entitled Immigration and
            the policy was final agency action because
            it reflected the government’s settled and   Work.  Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award for advancing the practice of immigration law
            operative position and immediately al-  and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding efforts in providing pro bono representation in the
            tered the framework governing immigrant
            visa adjudications for applicants from the   immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Commendations in 2010 and 2016.  Mr. Mehta is ranked among
            covered countries. It also rejected the   the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked
            government’s reliance on consular non-
            reviewability, reasoning that facial chal-  in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in immigration law, among other rankings.

                                                                   www.TheIndianEYE.com

| 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 |