Opinion ID: 798644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rivas's Form I-601

Text: The district court correctly concluded that neither of the exceptions to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability apply to Rivas's Form I-601. See Li Hing of Hong Kong, 800 F.2d at 971. The district court concluded that the Defendants submitted evidence that shows that a consular officer rejected Rivas's Form I-601 on February 5, 2008, and Rivas does not contend otherwise. Because the consular official was required only to accept or reject Rivas's Form I-601, and he rejected it, Patel's fail to take action exception does not permit us to entertain Rivas's Form I-601 claim. Nor did the district court err by finding that there is a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the consular official's rejection of Rivas's Form I-601. The consular official based his decision to reject Rivas's immigrant visa application on Rivas's purported admission to violating Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(E), which provides that [a]ny alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). While Rivas contends that he never admitted to violating § 212(a)(6)(E), in his complaint, however, he admits to being arrested on such a charge. Moreover, Rivas also failed to allege that the consular official did not in good faith believe the information he had. Bustamante, 531 F.3d at 1062. Thus, the consular official had a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for rejecting Rivas's Form I-601. Id. at 1060. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Rivas's claims as to the Form I-601 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.