Monday, February 23, 2015
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed divided today over whether a California woman can challenge the government's refusal to issue a visa to her husband from Afghanistan.
The justices heard arguments in the case of Fauzia Din, a naturalized U.S. citizen who sued the government after the visa petition she filed for her spouse was rejected in 2009.
Her husband, Kanishka Berashk, had worked as a low-level clerk for the Afghan government when it was controlled by the Taliban and continued working for the government after Taliban rule ended in 2001.
But the U.S. embassy in Pakistan offered no specific explanation for its decision other than to cite to a law allowing exclusion based on "terrorist activities."
His wife argues that she deserves to know the specific reason for the denial based on her marital rights under the Constitution.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the justices that a decades-old legal doctrine gives the government broad power to deny visas and that non-citizens have no constitutional right to seek an explanation. He said Din can't get around the law just because her marriage is "indirectly" affected by the decision.
That troubled several justices who seemed frustrated that there was no recourse if the consular officer simply made a careless mistake or used improper reasons. Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered if there were "two Mr. Smiths, or whatever the foreign name is, and they just get the wrong one."