N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OLA C HEHADE; R

ANA C HEHADE, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. R EX TILLER SON, Unite d State s Se c re ta ry of State ; ELIZAB ETH R IC HARD, Am

ba ssa dor, U.S. Em

ba ssy Le ba non; US DEPARTM ENT OF STATE, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55236 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-02219-DDP-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd LEITM AN, ** Distric t

Judge
. 

# FIL ED OCT 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M a tthe w Fre de ric k

Le itm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.R ola

and R ana C he ha de a

ppe a l the dism issa l of the ir c h a l le nge to the de nia l of R ana C he h a de ’ s im

m igra nt visa a pplic ation, whic h wa s de nie d by a c onsula r offic e r pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(3)(B ). R ana C he ha de , a

n una dm itte d a

nd nonre side nt a lie n, ha s no c onstitutiona l right of e ntry

and no c a

use of a c tion for judic ia l re vie w of he r visa a p plic at ion’ s de nia l. K le indie nst v . Mande l , 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972); ac c ord K e rry v . Din , 135 S.C t. 2128, 2131 (2015) (plura l ity opinion) (“ [A] n una dm itte d a n d nonre s ide nt
a lie n . . . ha s no right of e ntry into theUnite d

Stat e s, a nd no c a use of a c t ion to pre s s in furthe ran c e of his c l a im for a dm ission.”(c iting M ande l , 408 U.S. a

t 762)). He r da ughte r R ola

C he ha de , a

Unite d Stat e s c itiz e n, a l le ge s tha t the de nia l of he r m othe r’ s visa a

p p lic a tion im

plic at e s he r own c onstitutiona l due proc e ss rights. Assum ing without de c iding tha t R ola C he ha de ha s a

prote c te d libe rty inte re st in he r re lationship with he

r m othe r that give s rise to a right to c onstitutiona

lly
a de quate proc e dure s in the a djudic ation of he r m othe r’ s visa a pplic at ion, a

nd the re fore tha

t R ola C he ha de m ay

c h a lle n ge the de nia l pursua nt to thelim i te d inquiry a uthoriz e d by Mande l , the gove rnm e n t’ s notic e of he r m othe r’ s visa de nia l
satisfie d due proc e ss. S

e e Bustamante

v . Muk ase y , 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th C ir. 2008); s e e also Din , 135 S.C t. at 2139 (Ke nne dy , J., c onc urring) (finding tha t gove rnm e nt’ s notic e satisfie d due proc e ss without de c i ding whe t he r Unite d State s
2c itiz e n ha d a prote c t e d libe rty

inte re st pe rm itting he r c ha l le nge to the de nia l of he r spouse ’ s visa

a pplic a tion). The c onsula

r offic e r provide d a

fa c ia l ly le gitim ate re a son for de ny ing the visa a pplic a tion by

c i ting § 1182(a

)(3)(B ), a va lid sta

tute of ina d

m issibility
. Din , 135 S.C t. at 2140 (c onsula r offic e r’ s c ita

tion to § 1182(a

)(3)(B ) “ s uffic e s to show that the de nia l re ste d on a de te rm ination tha t Din’ s husba

n d did not sa

tisfy the sta tute ’ s re q uire m e nts,” and “ the Gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision to e xc lude an a lie n it de te rm i ne s doe s not sa

tisfy one or m ore of those [statutory ] c onditions is fa c ia lly le gitim ate unde r Mande l ” ); C arde nas v . Unite d State

s , 826 F.3d 1164, 1172 (9th C ir. 2016) (unde r two-pa

rt Din te st, “ [f] irst, the c onsula r offic e r m

ust de ny the visa unde r a va lid sta tute of ina dm issibility” to provide a fa c ia lly le g itim ate re a son). The c ita tion of § 1182(a

)(3)(B ) a lso provide d a

bona fide re a s on. Din , 135 S.C t. at 2140 (“ The Gove rnm e nt’ s c ita tion of § 1182(a

)(3)(B ) a lso indic ate s it re lie d upon
a bona fide fa c tua l ba sis for de ny ing a visa . . . .” ). B e c a

u se “ § 1182(a )(3)(B ) spe c ifie s disc re te fa c tua l pre dic a te s the c onsula r offic e r m

ust find to e xist be fore de ny ing a visa ,” id. at 2141, it is not ne c e ssa ry for the re to a lso be a

fa c t in the
re c o rd providing a

fa c ia l c onne c tion to the sta tutory ground of ina d

m issibility , C arde nas , 826 F.3d a

t 1172 (to sa

tisfy the se c ond pa

rt of the Din t e st, “ the
c onsula r offic e r m

ust c ite an a dm i ssibility

sta tute tha t ‘ spe c ifie s disc re te fa c tua l
3pre d ic a te s the c onsula r offic e r m

ust find to e xist be fore de ny ing a visa ,’ or the re
m ust be a fa c t in there c ord tha

t ‘ provide s at le a st a

fa c i a l c onne c tion to’ the sta tutory ground of ina d

m issibility .” (e m

pha sis a dde d) (quoting Din , 135 S.C t. at 2141)). As the gove rnm e n t ha s shown tha t it provide d a

fa c ia lly le gitim ate and bona fide re a son for the visa

a pplic a tion’ s de nia l, “ t

he pla i ntiff ha s the burde n of proving tha

t the re a s on wa s not bona fide by m aking a n ‘ a ffirm ative showing of ba d fa ith on thepa

rt of the c onsula

r offic e r who de n ie d [] a visa
. ’ ” C arde nas , 826 F.3d at 1172 (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Din , 135 S.C t. at 2141); se e also Bustamante , 531 F.3d a

t 1062–63 (“ [T] o m ake an a lle gation of ba d fa i th suffic ie nt to withsta nd dismissa l . . . [the c om pla int m ust] a lle ge tha

t the c onsula

r offic ia l did not in good faith be lie ve the inform ation he ha d. It is not enough to a lle ge tha t the
c onsula r offic i a l’ s inform ation wa s inc orre c t .” ). R ola C he ha de ha s not “

pla usibly
a lle ge d with suffic ie nt pa rtic ula rity ,” Din , 135 S.C t. at 2141, tha t the c onsula

r offic e r de nie d he r m othe r’ s visa a pplic at ion in ba d fa i th. The am e nde d c o m pla int’ s
a lle gation tha

t the c onsula

r offic e r’ s de c ision “wa s issue d in ba d fa ith, a s pa

rt of the c ontinue d unre a sona

ble ha ra ssm e nt of the Pla intiffs a nd the ir fam ily ” by

the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity

and the Unite d State s C i tiz e nship a nd Im m i gration Se rvic e s, is insuffic ie nt to m e rit furthe r judic ia l re vie w. In the
4a

bse nc e of suffic ie nt a lle gations of ba d fa ith on the pa rt of the c onsula

r offic e r, the gove rnm e nt’ s notic e tha

t R ana C he ha de wa s de nie d a dm ission under § 1182(a )(3)(B ) satisfie d a ny obliga tion it m ight ha ve ha d to provideR o la

C he ha de with a fa c ia lly le gitim ate and bona

fide re a son for the de nia l of he r m othe r’ s visa
a pplic a tion. The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is AFFIR M ED.

5