Court Opinion

ID: 9404566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 15:01:06.779076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.527774
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 17, 2023                  Decided June 23, 2023

                        No. 22-5009

 KRISTEN H. COLINDRES AND EDVIN A. COLINDRES JUAREZ,
                     APPELLANTS

                              v.

       UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL.,
                      APPELLEES

        Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the District of Columbia
                    (No. 1:21-cv-00348)

     Christopher W. Dempsey argued the cause and filed the
briefs for appellants.

     Catherine M. Reno, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief
were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, and T. Monique Peoples, Senior Litigation Counsel.

    Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WALKER, Circuit
Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALKER.
                                2

     Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment
filed by Chief Judge SRINIVASAN.

     WALKER, Circuit Judge: Edvin Colindres Juarez applied
for a visa to enter the United States. But the Government de-
nied his application, fearing that he was part of a criminal or-
ganization.

     Mr. Colindres and his wife — who is an American citi-
zen — filed this suit to challenge that decision. But their suit
faced an uphill struggle: With narrow exceptions, a court may
not review the government’s decision to deny a visa.

     To show that their suit fits within an exception, the Colin-
dreses point to a rule allowing American citizens to challenge
visa denials that burden their constitutional rights. Mrs. Colin-
dres says the rule applies here because denying her husband a
visa interfered with her constitutional right to marriage.

     The district court rejected that argument and dismissed.
We affirm. Though marriage is a fundamental right, it does not
include the right to live in America with one’s spouse. So the
right is not burdened when the government denies a spouse’s
visa application.

     Plus, even if the exception applied, allowing us to review
the Government’s visa denial, Mrs. Colindres’s challenge
would fail on the merits. To survive judicial review, the Gov-
ernment need only cite a statute listing a factual basis for deny-
ing a visa. It did that here.
                               3
                        I. Background

    Mr. Colindres was born and raised in Guatemala. He en-
tered the United States “without inspection” when he was four-
teen. Colindres v. United States Department of State, 575
F.Supp.3d 121, 127 (D.D.C. 2021). For more than twenty
years, he made his life in America — he got a job working for
a pool company, married an American citizen named Kristen,
and had a daughter.

     But for all that time, Mr. Colindres did not have permission
to live or work in the United States. So in 2015, he decided to
fix his immigration status.

    To do that, he first filed an Application for Provisional Un-
lawful Presence Waiver. Aliens like Mr. Colindres who are
“unlawfully present” in the United States for more than six
months are “ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be ad-
mitted to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), (a)(9)(B)(i).
An Unlawful Presence Waiver allows the Attorney General to
remove that obstacle. Id. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v). Here, the Attor-
ney General granted Mr. Colindres’s waiver application.

     Even so, the waiver did not give Mr. Colindres permission
to live in the United States. To get permission, he had to suc-
cessfully apply for a visa. Id. §§ 1181(a); 1182(a)(7).

    Visa applications are adjudicated by consular officers. Id.
§§ 1201 (authority to issue visas); 1361 (burden of proof to
show visa eligibility on the alien). So in July 2019, Mr. Colin-
dres travelled to the U.S. embassy in Guatemala for a visa in-
terview with a consular officer.

    The officer did not resolve Mr. Colindres’s application at
that interview. Instead, the officer asked Mr. Colindres to
                                 4
submit his Guatemalan criminal record. Though his record
came back clean, the officer scheduled a second interview.
Nearly a year later, the officer denied Mr. Colindres’s visa ap-
plication, finding him ineligible because “there [was] reason to
believe” that he was “a member of a known criminal organiza-
tion.” JA 242-43 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii)). That
decision meant he could not return to the United States.

    Mr. Colindres asked the embassy to reconsider. The em-
bassy’s Immigrant Visa Chief “reviewed the evidence” and
“reconsider[ed]” the consular officer’s decision. JA 248. But
“he did not find any compelling new information” to justify a
departure from the officer’s determination. Id.

     Unwilling to accept the embassy’s decision, Mr. Colindres
and his wife sued the Department of State. They asked the dis-
trict court to “[d]eclare” that Mr. Colindres’s visa denial was
“contrary to law” and to issue an injunction directing the Gov-
ernment to issue him a visa. JA 257.

    The district court dismissed. Though it did “not take
lightly” the “hardship” that the embassy’s decision had caused
the Colindreses, it held that judicial review was unavailable.
Colindres, 575 F.Supp.3d at 126. The “doctrine of consular
non-reviewability” bars judicial review of most visa denials.
Id. at 140. And though there are narrow exceptions to the doc-
trine, none allowed the Colindreses’ suit to proceed here. Id.

    The Colindreses appealed. We review the district court’s
decision to dismiss de novo. Sanchez v. Office of State Super-
intendent of Education, 45 F.4th 388, 395 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Taking as true the factual allegations in the Colindreses’ com-
plaint, we agree with the district court that they failed to state a
claim. Id. at 393. We thus affirm.
                               5
                          II. Analysis

     Deciding who is allowed into the United States and who is
not can involve hard policy choices. Denying a visa may “im-
plicate” America’s relationship with “foreign powers” or re-
quire evaluating “changing political and economic circum-
stances.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2418-19 (2018)
(cleaned up). For that reason, “the power to exclude aliens” is
“a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches,”
with limited judicial review. Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d
1022, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).

     Reflecting the limited role of the judiciary, the consular-
non-reviewability doctrine “shields a consular official’s deci-
sion to issue or withhold a visa from judicial review,” with two
narrow exceptions. Baan Rao Thai Restaurant v. Pompeo, 985
F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The first exception ap-
plies when “a statute expressly authorizes judicial review.” Id.
at 1025 (cleaned up). That exception is not at issue here be-
cause the Colindreses have pointed to no statute that allows re-
view. The second exception lets “an American citizen . . . chal-
lenge the exclusion of a noncitizen if it burdens the citizen’s
constitutional rights.” Id. at 1024.

     Even if an exception applies, judicial review is narrow. It
is limited to whether the officer gave a “facially legitimate and
bona fide reason” for denying a visa. Kleindienst v. Mandel,
408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972).

    Here, the Colindreses claim that the constitutional-rights
exception lets them bring this challenge. First, because Mrs.
Colindres is a citizen, they argue that the Government’s visa
denial burdened her “fundamental . . . marital right to live to-
gether” with her husband. JA 2. Second, they argue that, if the
exception applies, they should prevail on the merits because the
                                 6
Government did not give sufficient reasons for denying Mr.
Colindres’s visa.

     We disagree with both arguments.

    A. The Visa Denial Did Not Burden Mrs. Colindres’s
            Constitutional Right To Marriage

    “[M]arriage is a fundamental right.” Obergefell v.
Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 673 (2015). But a citizen’s right to
marry is not impermissibly burdened when the government re-
fuses her spouse a visa.

     The right to marriage is the right to enter a legal union. See
id. at 680-81. It does not include the right to live in America
with one’s spouse. Thus, in Swartz v. Rogers, a wife chal-
lenged her husband’s deportation because it burdened her
“right, upon marriage, to establish a home, create a family,
[and] have the society and devotion of her husband.” 254 F.2d
338, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1958). This court rejected that argument
because “deportation would not in any way destroy the legal
union which the marriage created. The physical conditions of
the marriage may change, but the marriage continues.” Id.; see
also Rohrbaugh v. Pompeo, 2020 WL 2610600 (D.C. Cir. May
15, 2020) (relying on Swartz to reject a husband’s claim that
denying his wife a visa burdened his right to marriage).

     True, the Supreme Court has said “the right to marry, es-
tablish a home and bring up children is a central part of the
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” 1 Zablocki v.

1
  Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause (which applies to the states) pro-
tects the right to marriage, it has not squarely held that the Fifth
                                  7
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) (cleaned up). But “consti-
tutional protection” is not triggered “whenever a regulation in
any way touches upon an aspect of the marital relationship.”
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 95 (2015) (plurality op.).

     Instead, constitutional protection kicks in only when “this
Nation’s history and practice” show that a government regula-
tion is incompatible with a fundamental liberty interest. Id.
(cleaned up); see also Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Or-
ganization, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2248 (2022) (courts must be
“guided by . . . history and tradition” when asking what liberty
interests are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment).

Amendment’s Due Process Clause (which applies to the federal gov-
ernment) also protects that right. Cf. Abigail Alliance for Better Ac-
cess to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695, 702
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (noting in dicta that the Fifth Amendment protects
the right to marriage but citing only a case discussing the Fourteenth
Amendment); Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 108 (2015) (Breyer, J., dis-
senting) (arguing that the Fifth Amendment protects the right to mar-
riage, but citing no case finding such a right under the Fifth Amend-
ment); see also Lewis v. Mutond, 62 F.4th 587, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2023)
(Rao, J., concurring) (“there are reasons to reconsider whether the
personal jurisdiction limits required by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment are identical to those of the Fourteenth”).
   Because the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments — enacted sev-
enty-seven years apart — could have been subject to different “pub-
lic understanding[s]” at their respective moments of ratification, they
may protect different unenumerated rights. See New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2137 (2022).
Here, the parties did not address whether the Fifth Amendment pro-
tects marriage to the same extent as the Fourteenth Amendment. So
we assume without deciding that it does. We thus rely on the Su-
preme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment caselaw here, even though
Mrs. Colindres’s claim arises under the Fifth Amendment.
                                8
     Here, history and practice cut against Mrs. Colindres’s
claim that she has a “marital right” to live in America with her
husband. JA 2. To paraphrase Justice Scalia’s plurality opin-
ion in Kerry v. Din, “a long practice of regulating spousal im-
migration precludes [Mrs. Colindres’s] claim that the denial of
[Mr. Colindres’s] visa application has deprived her of a funda-
mental liberty interest.” 576 U.S. at 95.

     From the Founding, the government has had discretion to
control entry into the United States. Consider the debates
around the Alien Act of 1798. The Act gave the President un-
fettered discretion to remove “all such aliens as he shall judge
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” Ch.
58, 1 Stat. 570 (1798).

     Though the Act’s constitutionality was vigorously de-
bated, its supporters and detractors agreed that the government
had discretion to control aliens’ entry into the United
States — even though they disagreed about which government
should wield that power. Supporters argued that the immigra-
tion power was federal. George Keith Taylor thus cited Black-
stone to show that “by the law of nations, it is left in the power
of all states to take such measures about the admission of
strangers as they think convenient.” Debate on the Virginia
Resolutions, reprinted in The Virginia Report of 1799-1800, at
31 (1850). For their part, opponents contended that “the power
to admit, or to exclude alien[s]” was left “to each individual
state.” 8 Annals of Cong. 1955 (1798) (Statement of Rep. A.
Gallatin). But even James Madison — one of the Act’s strong-
est critics — recognized that some government must have the
power to control entry into the United States. James Madison,
Report of 1800 (Jan. 7, 1800). He “allow[ed] the truth” of the
notion that the “discretionary power” to admit aliens “into the
country [is] of favor [and] not of right.” Id.
                               9
     Of course, the Supreme Court eventually held that the
power to control immigration was federal. See Head Money
Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884). And when Congress enacted im-
migration legislation, it generally did not carve out exceptions
for spouses.

     For example, the Page Act of 1875 gave “consol[s]” at
ports in Asia discretion to deny permission to come to the
United States to any immigrant who “ha[d] entered into a con-
tract or agreement for a term of service within the United
States[ ] for lewd and immoral purposes.” Ch. 141 § 1, 18 Stat.
477, 477-78. Though the Act was designed to stop prostitutes
emigrating, consuls unfortunately treated it as a “general re-
striction of Chinese female immigration.” George Anthony
Peffer, Forbidden Families: Emigration Experiences of Chi-
nese Women Under the Page Law, 1875-1882, 6 J. Am. Ethnic
Hist. 28, 42 (1986). As a result, the Act “made the immigration
of Chinese wives extremely difficult.” Id. Our point is not to
endorse the Act’s policy or application, but simply to note that
the Act did not include an exception for spouses and made no
provision for judicial review of consuls’ decisions. Ch. 141
§ 1, 18 Stat. 477, 477-78.

     Immigration statutes passed in the decades following the
Page Act likewise limited spousal immigration. Take the Im-
migration Act of 1882. It required the Treasury Secretary to
“examine” aliens arriving at United States ports and to deny
“permi[ssion] to land” to “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any
person unable to take care of himself or herself without becom-
ing a public charge.” Ch. 376 § 2, 22 Stat. 214. And the Act
contained no exceptions for citizens’ spouses. See also Immi-
gration Act of 1891, Ch. 551 § 1, 26 Stat. 1084 (expanding
grounds of inadmissibility and allowing only administrative re-
view).
                                 10
     Similarly, when Congress started to impose numerical lim-
its on immigration in 1921, those limits applied to citizens’
spouses. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 put a cap on the
number of immigrants who could come to the United States
each year. Ch. 8 § 2, 42 Stat. 5, 6. Though it gave preferred
status to citizens’ wives (but not husbands), it did not guarantee
them a quota spot. Id. “In other words, a citizen could move
his spouse forward in the line, but once all the quota spots were
filled for the year, the spouse was barred without exception.”
Din, 576 U.S. at 97.

     To sum up, from early federal immigration legislation to
today, Congress has sometimes limited spousal immigration.
To be sure, on other occasions, Congress has facilitated citizens
bringing their spouses to America. See, e.g., War Brides Act
of 1945, 59 Stat. 659. But Congress’s “long practice of regu-
lating spousal immigration” confirms that citizens have no fun-
damental right to live in America with their spouses. Din, 576
U.S. at 95.

     Because the Colindreses cannot show that the Govern-
ment’s visa denial burdened Mrs. Colindres’s fundamental
rights, their suit does not fall within the constitutional-rights
exception to the consular-non-reviewability doctrine. See
Baan Rao Thai Restaurant, 985 F.3d at 1024-25. 2

2
  Our conclusion is consistent with Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S.
753 (1972). Cf. Concurring Op. 1-2. There, the Supreme Court said
that an American professor’s First Amendment “right to receive in-
formation” was “implicated” when the government denied a visa to
a Marxist who was due to speak at the professor’s university. Man-
del, 408 U.S. at 764-65. But because the government had adequately
explained its visa denial, the Court expressly refused to decide what
the First Amendment requires in that context. Id. at 770 (“What First
Amendment or other grounds may be available for attacking exercise
                                  11

       B. Even If The Visa Denial Is Reviewable, The
               Government Met Its Burden

    Even if the Colindreses could get judicial review, their
claim would fail on the merits.

     When the constitutional-rights exception to the consular-
non-reviewability doctrine applies, judicial review is “deferen-
tial.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2419 (2018). Courts
ask only whether the government has given “a facially legiti-
mate and bona fide reason” for denying a visa. Mandel, 408
U.S. at 770.

    That requirement is easy to satisfy. It “mean[s] that the
[g]overnment need provide only a statutory citation to explain
a visa denial.” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2419. Citing a statutory
provision that “specifies discrete factual predicates the consu-
lar officer must find to exist before denying a visa” is enough.
Din, 576 U.S. at 105 (Kennedy, J. concurring). And even if the
government fails to cite such a statute, it may still meet its bur-
den by “disclos[ing] the facts motivating [its] decision.” Id.;
see also Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769.

of discretion for which no justification whatsoever is advanced is a
question we neither address nor decide in this case.”). So it may be
that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it
denies a visa for no reason at all. That is important because the first
step in the consular-non-reviewability doctrine is satisfied only if a
citizen’s rights are “burden[ed].” Baan Rao Thai Restaurant, 985
F.3d at 1024-25. Regardless, we need not tackle that question today
because the Colindreses do not argue that Mrs. Colindres’s First
Amendment right to “sustained, face-to-face interaction” with her
husband is implicated by the government’s visa denial. Concurring
Op. 2.
                               12
    Here, the consular officer’s decision to deny Mr. Colin-
dres’s visa satisfies that standard. The officer refused Mr.
Colindres’s     visa     application     under      8    U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii). That provision specifies a factual predi-
cate for denying a visa: The alien must “seek[ ] to enter the
United States to engage . . . [in] unlawful activity.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii). And the officer explained why that provi-
sion was satisfied here: There was “reason to believe [Mr.
Colindres] is a member of a known criminal organization.” JA
7-8. That was all the officer was required to do.

     To be sure, § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) “does not specify the type
of lawbreaking that will trigger a visa denial.” Munoz v. De-
partment of State, 50 F.4th 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding
that § 1182 does not contain discrete factual predicates). But
that level of specificity is not required. In Din, Justice Kennedy
said that a provision making terrorists inadmissible was de-
tailed enough. Din, 576 U.S. at 105 (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(citing § 1182(a)(3)(B)). And that provision is written in the
same general terms as the provision at issue here. Compare
§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(II) (an alien is inadmissible if “a consular
officer . . . has reasonable ground to believe” that the alien “is
engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist ac-
tivity”), with § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) (an alien is inadmissible if “a
consular officer . . . has reasonable ground to believe[ ] [that
the alien] seeks to enter the United States to engage . . . [in]
unlawful activity”).

    Thus, here, as in Din, the Government’s statutory “cita-
tion . . . indicates it relied upon a bona fide factual basis for
denying” Mr. Colindres’s request for a visa. Din, 576 U.S. at
105 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

    As a fallback, the Colindreses assert that the Government’s
visa denial was in “bad faith” because its stated reasons for
                               13
denying the visa were “pretextual” and “not based on the . . .
merits.” Colindres Br. 51-53. True, an “affirmative showing
of bad faith on the part of the consular officer” can demonstrate
the government failed to give a “bona fide” reason for its ac-
tions. Din, 576 U.S. at 105-106 (Kennedy, J. concurring). But
because courts “presume” that “public officers” have “properly
discharged their official duties,” a litigant must provide “clear
evidence” of bad faith. United States v. Chemical Foundation,
Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926).

    The Colindreses do not do that here. Instead, they point to
evidence in the record — Mr. Colindres’s clean criminal his-
tory and his lack of gang tattoos, for example — that they say
undercuts the Government’s decision. Colindres Br. 51-52.
But disagreeing with the Government’s decision to discount
that evidence falls well short of the kind of clear showing nec-
essary to establish bad faith. Cf. NRDC. v. SEC, 606 F.2d 1031,
1049 n.23 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (giving examples of evidence suf-
ficient to rebut the presumption of agency regularity); Hartman
v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 264 (2006) (the similar presumption
of prosecutorial regularity can be rebutted when a prosecutor
admits to improper “retaliatory thinking” or “rubber
stamp[ing]” decisions).

   The Colindreses’ challenge thus fails on the merits. The
Government met its burden by giving a facially legitimate and
bona fide reason for denying Mr. Colindres a visa.

C. The Colindreses’ Other Arguments Are Not Properly
                  Before The Court

   The Colindreses raise two other arguments to challenge the
Government’s visa denial, but neither is properly before us.
                                14
     First, the Colindreses assert that the statute under which
Mr. Colindres was denied a visa is unconstitutionally vague.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii); Colindres Br. 36. But the dis-
trict court held that they forfeited that argument by “failing to
address it” in their opposition to the Government’s motion to
dismiss. Colindres v. United States, 575 F.Supp.3d 121, 130
(D.D.C. 2021). Because the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion by finding forfeiture, we may not address the Colin-
dreses’ vagueness argument now. See Texas v. United States,
798 F.3d 1108, 1110, 1114-15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (this Court has
“yet to find” that a district court’s application of the failure-to-
respond forfeiture rule was an abuse of discretion (cleaned
up)).

    Second, the Colindreses contend that the visa denial vio-
lated the Equal Protection Clause. But they forfeited that argu-
ment by raising it in a single-sentence footnote of their appel-
late brief. Colindres Br. 47, n.5; see also CTS Corp. v. EPA,
759 F.3d 52, 64 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“hiding an argument” in a
footnote “and then articulating it in only a conclusory fashion”
is “forfeiture”).

                            *    *    *

    To get judicial review, the Colindreses must show that the
Government’s decision to deny Mr. Colindres a visa burdened
Mrs. Colindres’s constitutional rights. They cannot do that
here.

      And even if they could, the Government would win on the
merits. To survive judicial review, it need only cite a statute
listing a factual basis for denying a visa. It did that here.
     SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment: The court today affirms the
dismissal of the Colindreses’ complaint, and I agree with that
ultimate disposition. I also join Part II.C of the court’s opinion,
which concludes that the Colindreses’ unconstitutional
vagueness and equal protection challenges are not properly
before us. And I join the portion of Part II.B of the opinion that
rejects the Colindreses’ claim that the government acted in bad
faith in denying Mr. Colindres Juarez a visa. See Maj. Op. 12.
Respectfully, however, I do not join the remainder of Part II.B
or Part II.A of the court’s opinion, which address the
Colindreses’ procedural due process challenge.

     In Part II.A, my colleagues hold that a person’s
fundamental constitutional right to marriage does not include
any protected liberty interest in living in the United States with
her spouse. And because there is no protected interest to which
due process protections apply, there is no need to apply any due
process scrutiny, even a relaxed form of review. On that view,
the government could deny an American citizen’s spouse a visa
to reenter the country—thus depriving the citizen of the
company of her spouse in the country ever again—without any
explanation and for a wholly arbitrary reason, and that result
would not implicate the fundamental right to marriage so as to
trigger due process scrutiny. To be sure, as my colleagues note,
our court issued a decision 65 years ago holding that the
deportation of a citizen’s spouse did not violate the citizen’s
right to marriage. Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C.
Cir. 1958). But insofar as that decision rested on the notion
that the right to marriage does not include any protected interest
in living in the country with one’s spouse, we have had no
occasion to reassess the issue afresh in the intervening decades.

     The Supreme Court has since “acknowledged,” though,
that when a foreign scholar is denied admission into the country
to speak at a conference, an American professor’s
constitutional “right to receive information” is “implicated,”
                               2
such that some form of constitutional scrutiny applies. Trump
v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2419 (2018) (quotation marks
omitted) (quoting and discussing Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408
U.S. 753, 764–65 (1972)). (To the extent my colleagues mean
to question whether any scrutiny in fact applies on those facts,
i.e., the facts of Mandel (Maj. Op. 10 n.2), I understand Trump
v. Hawaii to confirm that “limited” scrutiny does apply in that
situation, 138 S. Ct. at 2419—after all, presumably some
manner of constitutional scrutiny applies when a constitutional
right is “implicated,” id.) In the Court’s view, American
professors have a cognizable right-to-information interest in a
foreign scholar’s “physical presence” in the country to enable
“sustained, face-to-face” interaction with the scholar. Mandel,
408 U.S. at 765. My colleagues conclude today, however, that
an American citizen has no cognizable right-to-marriage
interest in her husband’s physical presence in the country to
enable sustained, face-to-face interaction with her husband.
The upshot is that, whereas the denial of a visa to a foreign
scholar triggers at least some due process scrutiny because of
an American scholar’s right to receive information, the denial
of a visa to a foreign spouse triggers no due process scrutiny at
all despite the American spouse’s right to marriage.

     Notably, when the Supreme Court recently considered the
same issue in Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), a majority of
the Court either assumed or concluded that the right to marriage
includes a protected interest in living with one’s spouse in the
country. Id. at 102 (Kennedy, J., joined by Alito, J., concurring
in the judgment); id. at 107–10 (Breyer, J., joined by Ginsburg,
Sotomayor & Kagan, JJ., dissenting). In deciding to the
contrary, my colleagues rely on the plurality opinion in Din
joined by three Justices. See id. at 88–101 (plurality opinion).
But the remaining six Justices expressly declined to join the
plurality’s resolution of the issue. Id. at 102 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in the judgment); id. at 107 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
                                 3
And in fact, of the Justices who reached the merits of the
question, more concluded that an American citizen possesses a
cognizable liberty interest in her spouse’s physical presence in
the country than concluded otherwise. Compare id. at 107
(Breyer, J., dissenting), with id. at 88 (plurality opinion). The
issue then remains an unsettled one in the Supreme Court.

     There is no need for us to take up the merits of that
constitutional question anew in this case, and I would refrain
from doing so. Rather, we can rest our decision solely on the
ground my colleagues address in Part II.B of the court’s
opinion—i.e., that even assuming Mrs. Colindres’s
fundamental right to marriage includes a protected interest in
living in the country with her husband, such that at least some
form of due process scrutiny applies, the government’s denial
of a visa to him afforded her adequate process. That is
precisely how the controlling opinion in Din resolved that case.
Id. at 102 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). I would
follow the same course here.

      That brings me to Part II.B of the court’s opinion. While
I agree with my colleagues’ conclusion in that Part that the
government provided whatever process may have been due in
this case, my route for reaching that conclusion differs in part.
As my colleagues explain (Maj. Op. 10), the question is
whether the government gave “a facially legitimate and bona
fide reason” for denying Mr. Colindres Juarez a visa. Mandel,
408 U.S. at 770; see Din, 576 U.S. at 103–04 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in the judgment). The government’s citation of an
applicable admissibility statute as its basis for denying a visa
establishes that the reason for its denial is “facially legitimate,”
as it “show[s] that the denial rested on a determination that [the
applicant] did not satisfy the statute’s requirements.” Din, 576
U.S. at 104–05 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).
Such a statutory reference can also show that the government
                                4
“relied upon a bona fide” reason, if the statute “specifies
discrete factual predicates the consular officer must find to
exist before denying a visa.” Id. at 105.

      In the event the statute speaks in sufficiently broad terms
that it does not itself “specif[y] discrete factual predicates” for
denying a visa, the government can still satisfy due process by
“disclos[ing] the facts motivating [its] decision to deny” the
visa under the statute. Id. In Mandel, for instance, the relevant
statute was framed in highly general terms that “granted the
Attorney General nearly unbridled discretion,” but the
government’s disclosure of the underlying “facts motivating
[its] decision” under the statute—viz., “Mandel’s abuse of past
visas”—satisfied due process. Id. at 103, 105. Disclosure of
such facts shows a “bona fide” basis for denying a visa by
conveying why the government believes a broadly framed
statute applies in a particular case. See id. at 105.

     In this case, the statute under which the government denied
Mr. Colindres Juarez a visa is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii),
which renders inadmissible “[a]ny alien who a consular officer
or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely,
principally, or incidentally in . . . unlawful activity.” My
colleagues believe that statute specifies a sufficiently discrete
factual predicate such that citation of that statute alone is
enough to satisfy due process. The Ninth Circuit has held to
the contrary, concluding that, when the government denies a
visa under that provision, it must disclose a more discrete
factual predicate conveying why the government believes the
statute applies in the specific case. See Muñoz v. U.S. Dep’t of
State, 50 F.4th 906, 917–18 & n.27 (9th Cir. 2022).

    I might well side with my colleagues if it were necessary
to decide the issue, but we generally “avoid creating circuit
                               5
splits when possible.” United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.,
396 F.3d 1190, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2005). And here, the
government did more than just cite section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) in
explaining the basis for its visa denial. It also related why it
was denying a visa under that section: because it had “reason
to believe [Mr. Colindres Juarez] is a member of a known
criminal organization.” Compl. ¶ 37, J.A. 242–43. Under Din
and Mandel, disclosure of that discrete factual predicate,
together with citing the statute, shows a bona fide basis for the
denial so as to satisfy due process. I would affirm the dismissal
of the Colindreses’ due process claim on that ground.