Law School Case Brief
Kerry v. Din - 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015)
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Although the amount and quality of process that United States Supreme Court precedents have recognized as “due” under the Due Process Clause has changed considerably since the founding, it remains the case that no process is due if one is not deprived of “life, liberty, or property."
Fauzia Din, a naturalized U.S. citizen, petitioned to have her husband, Kanishka Berashk classified as an “immediate relative” entitled to priority immigration status. Berashk was a resident citizen of Afghanistan and former civil servant in the Taliban regime. Din's petition was approved, but Berashk's visa application was denied. A consular officer informed Berashk that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), which excludes aliens who have engaged in “terrorist activities.” The officer provided no further information. Unable to obtain a more detailed explanation for Berashk's visa denial, Din filed suit in Federal District Court, which dismissed her complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Din had a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of Berashk's visa. It further held that the Government deprived her of that liberty interest without due process when it denied Berashk's visa application without providing a more detailed explanation of its reasons.
Did the Ninth Circuit err in its pronouncement that Fauzia Din, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the government's denial of her husband’s visa?
On writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred when it found that Fauzia Din, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to seek judicial review of a consular officer's decision denying her husband's application for a visa pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(3)(B). Under a historical understanding of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Court ruled that Din could not claim that the denial of her husband's application for a visa deprived her of life, liberty, or property, and that the notice she received satisfied due process. The Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class