The power of Congress and the executive branch to legislate and implement the conditions for admitting aliens into the United States and permitting them to remain is so broad as to be virtually immune from judicial control. However, this power is still subject to constitutional limitations, including substantive and procedural due process protections. In immigration cases, the degree of judicial review of administrative decisions and actions that may be constitutionally required depends on the relative interests involved. In deciding what degree of judicial review is appropriate in immigration matters, Congress has sought to balance judicial review between fairness to desired immigrants (workers, family, refugees/asylees) and facilitation of the removal of detrimental aliens (national security risks/terrorists, criminals, public charges). Initially, a habeas corpus proceeding provided the primary avenue of judicial review of various immigration determinations. However, in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decisions construing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as applying to and providing an avenue for judicial review of immigration adjudications, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 by adding a judicial review provision in 1961 that provided for review of deportation orders by federal courts of appeals, but only for habeas corpus review of exclusion orders by federal district courts. Concerns about the growing population of undocumented aliens, fraudulent asylum claims, terrorism threats, and crimes of drug, human, and arms trafficking, led to legislation in 1996 and 2005 that limited judicial review, including the availability of habeas corpus proceedings. In the 113 th Congress, H.R. 2278 would generally continue the trend of limiting judicial review; S. 744 would more narrowly limit judicial review in certain instances of employer noncompliance with foreign worker visa programs. On the other hand, S. 744 also provides for judicial review for legalization programs. An "unadmitted and nonresident alien" has no constitutional right to be admitted into the United States. Accordingly, consular officers within the U.S. Department of State (DOS) generally have nonreviewable authority to deny visas. Therefore, the DOS regulations only provide for administrative, supervisory review of visa denials. This doctrine of consular non-reviewability has long been recognized by the courts and has rarely been challenged. However, there is some case law supporting limited judicial review of a visa denial with regard to the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens to hear and debate the religious and political views of aliens. In Kleindienst v. Mandel , the U.S. Supreme Court held that, when an executive branch officer/agency exercised discretion to not waive the exclusion of an alien as an anarchist and communist advocate for a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will not look behind the exercise of discretion nor test it by balancing the reason against the First Amendment interests of U.S. citizens who desire to hear the political views of and debate the alien. Some later federal appellate decisions have followed Mandel and extended its holding to visa denials by consular officers or to the assertion of other constitutional rights by U.S. citizens. Although they cannot order a consular officer to grant or deny a visa, courts have differed about whether they have jurisdiction to review consular failure to perform the nondiscretionary duty of deciding to grant or deny a visa and to require a consular officer to make a decision. For a visa revocation, there is no judicial review (including review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, or any other habeas corpus provision, and 28 U.S.C. §§1361 and 1651), except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal. It appears that courts have generally held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies to revocation of visas issued to aliens who are outside the United States, but that revocation of a visa issued to an alien who is already in the United States is subject to judicial review. Furthermore, federal courts have differed about whether the doctrine of nonreviewability extends to nonconsular officials, including officers of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Judicial review does not provide a broad panacea to aliens subject to removal orders. First, appealing a removal order does not serve to stay the removal order absent a court order. Second, there is no judicial review of removal determinations based on particular grounds of inadmissibility or deportability, including a public health ground certified by a medical officer and certain criminal grounds such as aggravated felonies, drug offenses, and firearm offenses. Finally, a court cannot review the denial of most types of relief from removal that are granted at the discretion of the immigration officer or immigration judge, including a waiver of inadmissibility, cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, and adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. These bars to judicial review of removal determinations do not preclude a federal appellate court from reviewing constitutional claims or questions of law raised in matters that are otherwise nonreviewable. In the exception to the bar on judicial review of denials of discretionary administrative relief from removal, federal appellate courts can review an asylum determination, when an alien faces persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, which serves a humanitarian objective, except for determinations for aliens arriving without proper travel documents who may potentially be subject to expedited removal under INA §235. However, there are restrictions on the scope and standards of judicial review of asylum determinations: (1)the administrative denial of relief is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to law; and (2) a court cannot reverse an administrative determination about the availability of evidence corroborating eligibility for removal relief. On the other hand, relief from removal is mandatory if the alien meets the eligibility requirements for either (1) withholding of removal under INA§241(b)(3), when the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in the alien's country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (2) protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture when there are substantial grounds for believing the alien would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Therefore, a federal appellate court may review denials of these types of relief. Generally, judicial review of removal orders is available in the federal appellate court for the judicial circuit in which the removal proceedings were completed. Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, that arise from a removal action or proceeding must be consolidated in a direct appeal of a final removal order to a federal circuit court of appeals; no habeas corpus review is permitted by any federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court called this jurisdictional consolidation provision the "zipper" clause for judicial review of removals. Except as explicitly provided in the INA judicial review provisions, courts may not review claims arising from Attorney General (or the Secretary of Homeland Security) decisions or actions to initiate removal proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien. Federal district courts have a limited role in the judicial review of removal orders. With regard to U.S. nationality claims, if there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the person appealing the removal order is a U.S. national, the federal appellate court will transfer the proceeding to the federal district court in whose jurisdiction the appellant resides for a new hearing and a declaratory judgment on that issue as if brought under 28 U.S.C. §2201, establishing federal court jurisdiction to declare the rights of the plaintiff. In addition, the District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction to review challenges to the constitutionality of the statute and/or implementing regulations for expedited removal of certain inadmissible aliens or to the legality under other laws of the regulations and other administrative guidelines. An appeal from the decisions described above would be made to the federal appellate court for the circuit in which the district court issuing the decision is located. In contrast to aliens in the United States, aliens outside the United States (or at its borders or ports of entry) are generally not due any procedural rights with respect to their ability to enter the United States. With a limited exception for certain permanent resident aliens who are returning to the United States, aliens whom the government is seeking to exclude from entry are not guaranteed an expulsion process that comports with constitutional standards. The governing principle generally remains that due process for aliens seeking admission to the United States at a port of entry and for aliens who entered illegally without inspection consists of "[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is." Generally, if an immigration officer determines that an arriving alien is inadmissible, that alien is removable without further hearing or review. The exception occurs when an arriving alien asserts an asylum claim, in which case, the alien will be referred to an asylum officer who determines whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution for race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If the asylum officer decides that an alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien is placed into regular removal proceedings where asylum claims will be given full consideration. If the asylum officer decides that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer may order removal without further review unless the alien requests review by an immigration judge of the credible fear determination. A credible fear review by an immigration judge must take place no later than 7 days after the initial negative credible fear determination. The immigration judge may place the alien into regular removal proceedings if the immigration judge reverses the negative determination of the asylum officer. Similarly if an alien makes a claim under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, to already being a lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee, and if an immigration officer verifies such a claim, the alien will be not be placed in expedited removal but may be placed in regular removal proceedings.