Opinion ID: 2976029
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Revocation procedure

Text: Finally, Abu Foul challenges the constitutionality of the regulation permitting the DHS to revoke an I-130, citing two related points: (1) the regulation allows the DHS to revoke a petition at any time, and (2) great harm befalls an alien when the DHS revokes a petition based on marriage fraud. It is true that 8 U.S.C. § 1155 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the DHS pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a), to revoke an approved petition “at any time.” It is also true that 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a) bars an alien found to have entered a sham marriage from receiving a future immigration benefit. We reject Abu Foul’s argument, however, because “[a]n alien does not obtain a vested right upon approval of a visa petition.” Wright v. INS, 379 F.2d 275, 276 (6th Cir. 1967); see also Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 496 n.2 (6th Cir. 2006). Rather, “approval of that petition merely renders the alien spouse eligible for immigrant status.” Pacheco Pereira v. INS, 342 F.2d 422, 423 (1st Cir. 1965); see also Bilali v. Gonzales, No. 06-4050, 2007 WL 2701081, at  (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) (per curiam) (“The determination that an alien spouse qualifies as an immediate relative under the statute is only the first step in a longer process that was enacted specifically to address concerns about marriage fraud.”). The alien must then merit a favorable exercise of the agency’s discretionary power to grant relief. In Abu Foul’s case, where he conceded removability, where his status was not adjusted, and where Hanieh’s I-130 was revoked little more than a year after being approved, the revocation, and the statute authorizing it, did not offend his due - 11 - No. 06-4020 Abu Foul v. Gonzales process rights. He had no protected interest in obtaining discretionary relief from removal. See Huicochea-Gomez v. INS, 237 F.3d 696, 700 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The failure to be granted discretionary relief does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.”). As Abu Foul does not challenge the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure, we do not consider it. See Patel v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 216, 219 (6th Cir. 2006) (failure to challenge IJ’s decision denying asylum constitutes forfeiture).