Romeo v. Centeno & Bruce A. Coane v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of State, 817 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Romeo v. Centeno & Bruce A. Coane v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of State, 817 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
51 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mohamed, No. 3:25-cv-00917 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1213 [D]ecisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts.17 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Mohamed, No. 3:25-cv-00917 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2025).
    ([D]ecisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts.)
  • Pak, Melody v. Biden, Joseph, No. 3:22-cv-00250 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 3, 2023).
    Chun, 223 F. Supp. 2d at 207 (also citing Centeno v. Schultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir. 1987)).
  • Salem v. Mukasey, 683 F. Supp. 2d 289 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).published
    See e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 , 92 S.Ct. 2576 , 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir.1987); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 971 (9th Cir.1986); Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kil…
  • Malyutin v. Rice, No. 2009-0093 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2009).published
    It applies even where it is alleged that the consular officer did not follow regulations, see Burrafato v. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1975), that the pertinent regulations are invalid, see Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28 (…
  • Malyutin v. Rice, 677 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009).published
    It applies even where it is alleged that the consular officer did not follow regulations, see Burrafato v. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir.1975), that the pertinent regulations are invalid, see Venturar-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28 (…
  • Pedrozo v. Clinton, 610 F. Supp. 2d 730 (S.D. Tex. 2009).published
    “the denial of visas to aliens is not subject to review by the federal courts”
  • Ahmed, Farah N. v. DHS, No. 02-1467 (7th Cir. May 9, 2003).published
    Cir. 1999); Doan v. INS, 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir. 1999); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213-14 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir. 1981); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554,…
  • Farah Naz Ahmed v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 328 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2003).published
    See Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (D.C.Cir.1999); Doan v. INS, 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir.1999); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213-14 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir…
  • Chun v. Powell, 223 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2002).published
    See, e.g., Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1162 (D.C.Cir.1999) (the APA does not provide a jurisdictional grant for reviewing a consular’s denial of a visa since the (“immigration laws preclude judicial review of consular visa decisions”…
  • Roberto Saavedra Bruno,appellants v. Madeleine K. Albright, Sec'y of State,appellees, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999).published
    See, e.g., Castaneda-Gonzalez v. INS, 564 F.2d 417 , 428 n. 25 (D.C.Cir. 1977); Chi Doan v. INS, 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir.1998); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800…
Show 7 more citing cases
  • Bruno, Roberto S. v. Albright, Madeleine, No. 98-5495 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3, 1999).published
    Cir. 1977); Chi Doan v. INS, 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir. 1998); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1986); Rivera de Gomez v. Kissinger, 534 F.2d…
  • Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 20 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 1998).published
    For this proposition, the Baker court cited cases in other jurisdictions—Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213-14 (5th Cir.1987); Li Hing, supra—that expressly adopted the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
  • Doan v. INS, 990 F. Supp. 744 (E.D. Mo. 1997).published 3 cites
    Courts will not review the decisions of consular officers even *747 where those decisions are based on action unauthorized by the INA. see e.g., Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213 (5th Cir.1987), on procedural irregularities, see e.g.,…
  • Zimeng Shen v. United States Consulate Gen. at Shanghai, China, 866 F. Supp. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).published
    “Congress specifically exempted the exercise of this power from review by the Secretary of State ... [, and] it has been consistently held that the consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject either to administr…
  • Romero v. Consulate of US, Barranquilla, Colombia, 860 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. Va. 1994).published 3 cites
    Likewise, the fact that a consular officer may have erroneously interpreted and applied the INA, see Grullon v. Kissinger, 417 F.Supp. 337, 339-340 (E.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd 559 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir.1977), or indeed the fact that a consular offic…
  • Joel Castillo-Perales v. Eric Holder, Jr., 411 F. App'x 695 (5th Cir. 2011).unpublished
    See Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213-14 (5th Cir.1987).
  • City of New York Bruce Cronin v. James A. Baker Iii, Sec'y of State, 878 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1989).published
    Accord Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1213-14 (5th Cir.1987), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 696 , 98 L.Ed.2d 648 (1988); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 970-71 (9th Cir.1986); Burrafato v. Department of State, 52…
At page 1214 “decisions of united states consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts”7 citing cases3 citing courts quote it
  • Calvary Albuquerque Inc v. Blinken, No. 1:23-cv-00486 (D.N.M. Mar. 13, 2024).
    (This result is in accord with our prior holdings that decisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts.)
  • Hernando Jose De Castro Polo v. Deborah Fairman, 164 F. App'x 930 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    See, e.g., Te Kuei Liu v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 645 F.2d 279, 285 (5th Cir. Unit A May 1981) (explaining that actions of American consul in Winnipeg, Canada, where alien’s relative visa petition had been forwarded, were not…
  • Margaret J. Randall v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney Gen., 854 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1988).published 4 cites
    Sec. 202 (a) (1934); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 696 , 98 L.Ed.2d 648 (1988) (adhering to position that "decisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable…
  • Richard Mulligan v. George Schultz, Sec'y of State, & the United States of Am., 848 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988).published
    The district court rejected this claim as an attempt to “circumvent the doctrine of nonreviewability of consular decisions by naming as a defendant the Secretary of State and [by] couching their claims as a challenge to the regulations gov…
  • Nsiah v. Perryman, 129 F.3d 119 (7th Cir. 1997).unpublished 3 cites
    See Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th Cir.1987).
  • Laureen Onuchukwu v. Sec'y State, 408 F. App'x 558 (3d Cir. 2010).unpublished
    ([T]he denial of visas to aliens is not subject to review by the federal courts.)
  • Capistrano v. Dep't of State, 267 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    (This result is in accord with our prior holdings that decisions of United States consuls on visa matters are not renewable by the courts.)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Romeo
v.
CENTENO and Bruce A. Coane, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. George P. SHULTZ, Secretary of State, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
87-2133.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 1, 1987.
Published opinion
817 F.2d 1212
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6836
Bruce A. Coane, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants., Hays Jenkins, Jr., Prank A. Conforti, Asst. U.S. Atty U.S. Dept, of Justice, Houston, Tex., Richard M. Evans, Eloise Rosas, Attys., Office of Imm. Lit., Civil Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Gee, Rubin, Jolly.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Romeo Centeno and Bruce Coane appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit against the appellees. Because we find that the consular officer’s decision to deny Centeno a visa to enter this country was not reviewable by a federal court, we affirm the dismissal of the appellants’ lawsuit.

Romeo Centeno, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for a visitor’s visa to the United States on or around April 1, 1986. This application was denied by a consular official at the United States Embassy in Manila. Despite further efforts on behalf of Centeno by his brother-in-law, Bruce Coane, a United States citizen, no visa for Centeno was obtained. Acting on behalf of himself and Centeno, Coane filed a complaint against the appellees in United States District Court on July 17,1986. The complaint alleged that the denial of Centeno’s visa application was not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act, constituted arbitrary and capricious action, and violated Coane’s first amendment rights. The appellants’ complaint was dismissed by the district court on January 23, 1987.

Under Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), the denial of visas to aliens is not subject to review by the federal courts. 408 U.S. at 766, 92 S.Ct. at 2583. Where the statute under which the alien is excluded provides for a waiver of exclusion, the denial of the waiver is subject to only a minimal review by federal courts. Id. at 770, 92 S.Ct. at 2585. Such review is limited solely to the determination of whether a facially legitimate and bona fide reason exists for the denial of the waiver. Id. Since Centeno was denied a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(b), [1] which does not provide[*1214] for a waiver, however, the denial of his visa is not subject to any review by a federal court.

This result is in accord with our prior holdings that decisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts. Te Kuei Liu v. INS, 645 F.2d 279, 285 (5th Cir.1981); Gonzalez-Cuevas v. INS, 515 F.2d 1222, 1224 (5th Cir.1975). The district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ suit is therefore

AFFIRMED.

1

. 8 U.S.C. § 1184(b) provides:

Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101(a)(15) of this title. An alien who is an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the Interna[*1214] tional Organizations Immunities Act, or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and substance as is prescribed by section 1257(b) of this title.

Centeno applied for a nonimmigrant visitor's visa.