Filed: Aug. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TANIA GOLKAR, No. 11-57044 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04845-JFW- FFM v. Central District of California, Los Angeles JOHN F. KERRY, United States Secretary of State; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEH ORDER JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Defendant
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TANIA GOLKAR, No. 11-57044 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04845-JFW- FFM v. Central District of California, Los Angeles JOHN F. KERRY, United States Secretary of State; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEH ORDER JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Defendants..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 26 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIA GOLKAR, No. 11-57044
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04845-JFW-
FFM
v. Central District of California,
Los Angeles
JOHN F. KERRY, United States Secretary
of State; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEH ORDER
JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges and DANIEL,* Senior District
Judge.
The Memorandum Disposition filed on April 18, 2014, is amended as
follows: replace footnote 3 on page 5 with the following text:
The government argues that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3), a
consular officer is not required to provide any written “notice
stating the determination or listing the specific provision or
*
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
provisions of law under which that alien is inadmissible if the
alien is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2) or (3).” But
the Golkars only learned the visa was denied under § 1182(a)(3)
after their congressman informed them of that fact years later; in
the denial itself, the consular officer simply cited to § 1182(a). It
is therefore impossible to know from the face of the denial
whether the consular officer complied with a mandatory
procedure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(1) (“[T]he officer shall
provide the alien with a timely written notice that . . . lists the
specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is
inadmissible”). Contrary to the government’s argument, this case
stands apart from Kerry v. Din,
135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015). There, the
consular officer informed the visa applicant that his visa was
denied under § 1182(a)(3)(B), and the Court concluded that under
§ 1182(b), the consular officer was not required to provide any
more specific information than that. See
id. at 2141. Here, the
denial cited no subsection of § 1182(a) at all.
The Petition for Panel Rehearing is otherwise DENIED, and no further
petitions for rehearing will be accepted.