Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

officer  explained,  she  could  not  relay  that  information  at 
the time because the waiver required review from a super-
visor, who had since approved it.  The officer said that the 
family’s  case  was  now  in  administrative  processing  and 
that she was attaching a “ ‘revised refusal letter indicating 
the approval of the waiver.’ ”  Ibid.  The new form did not 
actually approve the waiver (in fact, the form contains no
box  saying  “granted”).  But  a  different  box  was  now 
checked,  reading:  “ ‘The  consular  officer  is  reviewing  your 
eligibility  for  a  waiver  under  the  Proclamation. . . .  This 
can be a lengthy process, and until the consular officer can
make  an  individualized  determination  of  [the  relevant] 
factors,  your  visa  application  will  remain  refused  under
Section 212(f) [of the Proclamation].’ ”  Ibid.  One is left to 
wonder why this second box, indicating continuing review,
had  not  been  checked  at  the  outset  if  in  fact  the  child’s 
case had remained under consideration all along.  Though
this  is  but  one  incident  and  the  child  was  admitted  after 
considerable  international  attention  in  this  case,  it  pro-
vides yet more reason to believe that waivers are not being 
processed in an ordinary way.

Finally, in a pending case in the Eastern District of New
York, a consular official has filed a sworn affidavit assert-
ing that he and other officials do not, in fact, have discre-
tion to grant waivers.  According to the affidavit, consular
officers “were not allowed to exercise that discretion” and 
“the  waiver  [process]  is  merely  ‘window  dressing.’ ”  See 
Decl.  of  Christopher  Richardson,  Alharbi  v.  Miller,  No. 
1:18-cv-2435  (June  1,  2018),  pp.  3–4.  Another  report
similarly  indicates  that  the  U. S.  Embassy  in  Djibouti,
which  processes  visa  applications  for  citizens  of  Yemen,
received  instructions  to  grant  waivers  “only  in  rare  cases 
of  imminent  danger,”  with  one  consular  officer  reportedly
telling  an  applicant  that  “ ‘[e]ven  for  infants,  we  would 
need  to  see  some  evidence  of  a  congenital  heart  defect  or
issue  of  that  degree  of  difficulty 
another  medical