Vincenzo Burrafato & Antonina Burrafato v. United States Dep't of State & United States Immigr.& Naturalization Serv., 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Vincenzo Burrafato & Antonina Burrafato v. United States Dep't of State & United States Immigr.& Naturalization Serv., 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the significant distinguishing feature of the instant case is that no constitutional rights of american citizens over which a federal court would have jurisdiction are 'implicated' here.”
117 citation events (75 in the last 25 years) across 32 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tharmabalan v. Blinken (nysd, 2024-04-29) · Strongest negative: Doe v. Plyler (txed, 1978-09-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 22 C.F.R. § 42 cited 1× in this case · 34 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Doe v. Plyler
E.D. Tex. · 1978 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976). 12 *580 The conclusion that illegal aliens are entitled to equal protection of the laws in no way means, however, that illegal aliens are entitled to precisely the same treatment afforded U.S. citizens and lawfully resident aliens.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Tharmabalan v. Blinken
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the significant distinguishing feature of the instant case is that no constitutional rights of american citizens over which a federal court would have jurisdiction are 'implicated' here.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Abdul Baaghil v. Stephen Miller
6th Cir. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
o constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Manwani v. U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service
W.D.N.C. · 1990 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
application denied on the ground that was ineligible for admission under section 212(a)
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) ASHBY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
M.D.N.C. · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the significant distinguishing feature of the instant case is that no constitutional rights of american citizens over which a federal court would have jurisdiction are implicated here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandra Munoz v. Dos
9th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Colindres, 2023 WL 4140277 , *5 (“[C]itizens have no fundamental right to live in America with their spouses.”); Baaghil, 1 F.4th at 433 (“American residents— whether citizens or legal residents—do not have a constitutional right to require the National Government to admit noncitizen family members into the country.”); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir. 1970) (similar); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (similar); Fasano v. United States, 230 F. App’x 239 , 239–40 (3d Cir. 2007) (“The Constitution does not recognize the rig…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colindres v. U.S. Department of State (2×)
D.D.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
A denial of an immediate relative visa does not infringe on their right to marry.”); Bright v. Parra, 919 F.2d 31, 34 (5th Cir. 1990) (“United States citizen spouses have no constitutional right to have their alien spouses remain in the United States.”); Burrafato v. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (“[N]o 12 Id.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baan Rao Thai Restaurant v. Pompeo
D.D.C. · 2019 · confidence medium
The doctrine precludes review even where it is alleged that the consular officer failed to follow regulations, Burrafato v. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555-57 (2d Cir. 1975); the applicant challenges the validity of the regulations on which the decision was based, Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28, 32 (9th Cir. 1981); or the decision is alleged to have been based on a factual or legal error.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo
7th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Garcia v. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172, 1183 (5th Cir. 1982); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975); Cervantes v. I.N.S., 510 F.2d 89 , 91–92 (10th Cir. 1975); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo
7th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Garcia v. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172, 1183 (5th Cir. 1982); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975); Cervantes v. I.N.S., 510 F.2d 89 , 91–92 (10th Cir. 1975); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hazama v. Rodriguez
N.D. Ill. · 2018 · confidence medium
Dec. 15, 2016) (“The Second Circuit has found that ‘no constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse.’”) (quoting Burrafato v. United States Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975)); Jathoul v. Clinton, 880 F. Supp.2d 168, 172 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahmed Bakran v. Secretary United States Depart
3rd Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
But that theory runs headlong into Congress’ plenary power over immigration.”); Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 496 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that “[t]he Constitution does not recognize the right of a citizen spouse to have his or her alien spouse 14 remain in the country” (alteration in original ) (quoting Almario v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir. 1989))); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975) (holding that a citizen spouse has no constitutional right to seek to bar the deportation of an alien spouse); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barran v. Johnson
E.D. Pa. · 2016 · confidence medium
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed, “[t]he Constitution ‘does not recognize the right of a citizen spouse to have his or her alien spouse remain in the country.’ ” Fasano v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 239, 240 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 496 (6th Cir.2006), and citing Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lleshi v. Kerry
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · confidence medium
It is settled that the judiciary will not interfere with the visa-issuing process.”); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 557 (2d Cir.1975) (“We hold, in short, that the district court correctly decided that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review” denial of an Italian citizen’s visa application).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Udugampola v. Jacobs
D.D.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
Indeed, while noting that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to marry and the marital relationship, this Court concluded in Udugampola I that “these constitutional rights are not implicated when one spouse is removed or denied entry into the United States.” 795 F.Supp.2d at 105 (citing Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C.Cir.1958); Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 496 (6th Cir.2006); Almario v. Attorney Gen., 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975); Noel v. Chapman, 508 F.2d 1023, 1027-28 (2d Cir.1975); Movim…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mostofi v. Napolitano
D.D.C. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C.Cir.1958) (citizen wife has no constitutional rights violated by deportation of husband); Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487, 496 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Almario v. Attorney General, 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989)) ("A denial of an immediate relative visa does not infringe upon [plaintiffs'] right to marry."); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep't of State, 523 F.2d 554, 554-55 (2d Cir.1975) (no subject matter jurisdiction over claim that denial of alien husband's visa "without reason" violated citizen wife's constitutional rights).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Okpoko v. Heinauer
D.R.I. · 2011 · confidence medium
See id. (citing, inter alia, Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218 , 1222 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989)) (noting “that [U.S. Citizen] has no constitutional right to have her alien spouse remain in the United States”); Almario v. Attorney Gen., 872 *317 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989) (same); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2nd Cir.1975) (reaffirming “the rule that no constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse”); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir.1970) (rejecting argument that government’s refusal to allow alien wif…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samirah v. Holder (2×)
7th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543-44 , 70 S.Ct. 309 , 94 L.Ed. 317 (1950); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765-67 , 92 S.Ct. 2576 , 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (D.C.Cir.1999); Burrafato v. U.S. Dept. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975).
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano (4×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See id. at *5-*7 (citing, e.g., Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1181 (2d Cir.1978); Rivera de Gomez v. Kissinger, 534 F.2d 518, 519 (2d Cir. 1976); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Academy v. Napolitano (4×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See id. at *5-*7 (citing, e.g., Wan Shih Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1181 (2d Cir. 1978); Rivera de Gomez v. Kissinger, 534 F.2d 518, 519 (2d Cir. 1976); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir. 1975)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bustamante v. Mukasey
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir.1990); Burrafato v. United States Dep’t. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir.1975); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163 (D.C.Cir.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bustamante v. Mukasey
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 647-48 (1st Cir. 1990); Burrafato v. United States Dep’t. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir. 1975); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1163 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farag v. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
S.D.N.Y. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218 , 1222 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989); Almario v. Attorney General, 872 F.2d 147, 151 (6th Cir.1989); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir.1970); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338 (D.C.Cir.1958).
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Saavedra Bruno, 197 F.3d at 1163 ; Burrafato, 523 F.2d at 556-57 (observing that the court did not have jurisdiction over U.S. citizen’s challenge to Government’s denial of visa to her alien husband, but that the court would have jurisdiction if the constitutional rights of American citizens were implicated (emphasis added)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raduga USA Corp. v. United States Department of State
S.D. Cal. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1005 , 108 S.Ct. 696 , 98 L.Ed.2d 648 (1988); Burrafato v. Dept. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir.1975); Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C.Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farah Naz Ahmed v. Department of Homeland Security
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
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.1981); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahmed, Farah N. v. DHS
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
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, 556-57 (2d Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barmo v. Reno
E.D. Pa. · 1995 · confidence medium
Anetekhai, 876 F.2d at 1222 n. 5 (citing Burrafato v. United States Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976)); Azizi v. Thornburgh, 719 F.Supp. 86, 95 (D.Conn.1989), aff'd, 908 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir.1990); Smith, 684 F.Supp. at 1118 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) William A. Kent v. United States of America Department of State Robert A. Strauss, Ambassador to Russia
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Burrafato v. United States Dep't of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of New York Bruce Cronin v. James A. Baker Iii, Secretary of State
D.C. Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
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, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martha G. Almario and Romeo G. Almario v. Attorney General Immigration and Naturalization Service
6th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Burrafato v. U.S. Dept. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2nd Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 983 , 91 S.Ct. 1667 , 29 L.Ed.2d 149 (1971); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338 (D.C.Cir.) cert. denied, 357 U.S. 928 , 78 S.Ct. 1373 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1362 (1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Escobar v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
D.D.C. · 1988 · confidence medium
E.g., Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975) (“no constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse”), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 983 , 91 S.Ct. 1667 , 29 L.Ed.2d 149 (1971); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 928 , 78 S.Ct. 1373 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1362 (1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
D. Mass. · 1988 · confidence medium
Although the plaintiffs point out that the statute imposes burdens on their marital relationship, the constitutionally recognized liberty interest in marriage does not encompass the right to have one’s alien spouse remain in this county. 2 Burrafato v. U.S. Dept. of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102, 107 (1st Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 402 U.S. 983 , 91 S.Ct. 1667 , 29 L.Ed.2d 149 (1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harvard Law School Forum v. Shultz
D. Mass. · 1986 · confidence medium
E.g., Burrafato v. United States, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2nd Cir.1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Abourezk v. Reagan, 592 F.Supp. 880, 881 (D.D.C.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Azzouka v. Sava
2d Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); NGO Committee on Disarmament v. Haig, 82 Civ. 3636 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Azzouka v. Sava
2d Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); NGO Committee on Disarmament v. Haig, 82 Civ. 3636 (S.D.N.Y.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allende v. Shultz
D. Mass. · 1985 · confidence medium
E.g., Burrafato v. United States, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2nd Cir.1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Abourezk v. Reagan, 592 F.Supp. 880, 881 (D.D.C.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abourezk v. Reagan
D.D.C. · 1984 · confidence medium
In any event, courts have frequently exercised subject matter jurisdiction where it was alleged that First Amendment violations had occurred in the administration of the Immigration Act (see e.g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 , 97 S.Ct. 1473 , 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977); Burrafato v. Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir.1975)), and they have likewise found jurisdiction where a citizen claimed misapplication of the Act with *884 respect to an alien with whom he had some relationship.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A. Boe, by His Next Friend, B. Boe v. Linus Wright (2×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
The Court further found that classifications based on alienage at least to the extent they affect lawfully admitted resident aliens "are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny." Id. at 372 , 91 S.Ct. at 1852 14 The Supreme Court in Truax v. Raich concluded that if a state could enact laws denying aliens employment, "the practical result would be that those lawfully admitted to the country under authority of the acts of Congress, instead of enjoying in a substantial sense and in their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission, would be segregated in such of the sta…
cited Cited "see" Calvary Albuquerque Inc v. Blinken
D.N.M. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d.
discussed Cited "see" Qadar v. Dept. of Homeland Security
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (1975) (holding that no constitutional right of citizen was violated by denial of her noncitizen husband’s visa application); United States v. Saipov, 412 F. Supp. 3d 295 , 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (dismissing noncitizen’s challenge to the denial of nonimmigrant visa applications submitted by his immediate family members because, inter alia, “Saipov has not established that the denial of his relatives’ visa applications violates his constitutional rights”); Lleshi, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 201 (“[B]ecause visas do not constitute a life…
discussed Cited "see" Celestin v. U.S. Department State Bureau of Consular Affairs
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir. 1975) (concluding that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because “no constitutional rights of American citizens over which a federal court would have jurisdiction were ‘implicated’”).
discussed Cited "see" Chiang v. Skeirik
1st Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2nd Cir.1975) (stating that “the federal courts clearly had jurisdiction” over immigration disputes “grounded on an alleged violation of First Amendment rights of American citizens”); see also Am.
cited Cited "see" Hernando Jose De Castro Polo v. Deborah Fairman
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See 523 F.2d at 556 n.2.
cited Cited "see" Romero v. Consulate of US, Barranquilla, Colombia
E.D. Va. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. United States Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 557 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976).
discussed Cited "see" Blackwell v. Thornburgh
C.D. Cal. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975), ce rt. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976) (no constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse).
cited Cited "see" Paul and Mona Anetekhai v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
5th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976). 6 .
cited Cited "see" Ben-Issa v. Reagan
W.D. Mich. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. United States Department of State, 523 F.2d 554 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976).
discussed Cited "see" Nazario Castaneda-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burrafato v. Department of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556-57 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 , 96 S.Ct. 1105 , 47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Loza-Bedoya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 410 F.2d 343, 347 (9th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Guy v. Blinken
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
May 18, 2009) (quoting Ngassam v. Chertoff, 590 F. Supp. 2d 461, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)) (emphasis in original); see also Burrafato v. State Dep’t, 523 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincenzo BURRAFATO and Antonina Burrafato, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, Appellees
981, Docket 75-7081.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Aug 13, 1975.
523 F.2d 554
Joseph P. Marro, New York City (Martin L. Rothstein, and Fried, Fragomen & Del Ray, New York City, on the brief), for appellants., Peter A. Goldman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (David G. Trager, U. S. Atty., and Paul B. Bergman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellees.
Feinberg, Timbers, Van Graafeiland.
Cited by 88 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: M.D. North Carolina (1)
TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:

On this appeal from a judgment entered in the Eastern District of New York on January 22, 1975, Walter Bruchhausen, District Judge, granting defendants’ motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint which sought declaratory and injunctive relief, the essential issue is whether the district court correctly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint which claimed that the constitutional rights of a citizen wife had been violated by denial of her alien husband’s[*555] visa application without reason by the United States Consul in Palermo, Italy, and that failure of the Department of State in accordance with its regulations to specify the reasons for denial of the husband’s visa application denied him procedural due process.

We affirm.

I.

Vincenzo Burrafato is a native and citizen of Italy. In 1961 he was married in Italy to Antonina Burrafato, a United States citizen. They are the parents of two children, 11 and 9 years of age, both of whom were born in Italy. In February 1970, Vincenzo applied to the United States Consul in Palermo for a permanent immigration visa to the United States. The application was denied on the ground that he was ineligible under Section 212(a) of the Immigration & Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (1970). Upon request of appellants’ counsel by letter dated September 22, 1971, the Visa Office of the Department of State reviewed the denial of the visa application and informed counsel by letter dated October 21, 1971 that “no facts were disclosed which would warrant a reversal of the original finding of ineligibility under [the statute].”

In the meanwhile, without waiting in Italy to learn whether his visa application would be granted, Vincenzo entered the United States illegally on February 17, 1970. When the Immigration & Naturalization Service learned of his illegal entry, he was served on December 7, 1972 with an order to show cause why he should not be deported pursuant to Section 241(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) (1970). At his deportation hearing, Vincenzo admitted that he had entered the United States without a valid immigrant visa or other entry document for permanent residence. Accordingly, on July 25, 1974, he was found to be deportable pursuant to Section 241 (a)(1) by an immigration judge, but was granted the privilege of voluntary departure until November 25, 1974 pursuant to Section 244(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e) (1970). [1]

In the meanwhile, on June 4, 1974 the instant action was commenced in the district court seeking the relief stated above. In an opinion filed January 21, 1975, the court dismissed the complaint. After a notice of appeal was filed on January 24, the court, on application of appellants, on January 28 stayed deportation of Vincenzo and further stayed withdrawal of the privilege of voluntary departure pending this appeal.

II.

Whether the district court was correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction turns on the validity of the claims alleged.

With respect to the claim that denial of Vincenzo’s visa application violated the constitutional rights of Antonina, it is sufficient to note that this claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in Noel v. Chapman, 508 F.2d 1023, 1027-28 (2 Cir. 1975), where we reaffirmed the rule that no constitutional right of a citizen spouse is violated by deportation of his or her alien spouse. See also Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d 102 (1 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 983 (1971); Swartz v. Rogers, 254 F.2d 338 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 928 (1958).

III.

A closer question is presented by appellants’ claim that the failure of the Department of State, in accordance with its regulations, to specify the reasons for denial of Vincenzo’s visa application denied him procedural due process. [2]

[*556] Appellants argue in essence that, in failing to specify under which of the thirty-one subsections of Section 212(a) of the Act Vincenzo was excluded, the Department of State did not comply with its own regulation, 22 C.F.R. § 42.-130 (1975), which requires it to inform an unsuccessful applicant for a visa of the reasons for denial of the visa and to allow the applicant an opportunity to refute the evidence of ineligibility that may have been used against him. [3]

This argument, as appellants’ counsel acknowledges, must be considered in the light of repeated admonitions by the Supreme Court that the judicial branch should not intervene in the executive’s carrying out the policy of Congress with respect to exclusion of aliens. As recently as its decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972), the Court quoted with approval from its earlier opinion in Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 547 (1895):

“The power of congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”

Despite this strong reaffirmation of judicial policy by the Supreme Court, r appellants nevertheless urge that Mandel supports their claim that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

We disagree. In Mandel, the Supreme Court was confronted with a challenge to the Attorney General’s refusal to waive exclusion of an alien on the ground that First Amendment rights of those who wished to hear the alien would be infringed. Th& Court held only that, when waiver granted for a “facially legitimate andjDOna fide reason”, the courts will not “test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.” 408 U.S. at 770.

Likewise, the courts of this Circuit have interpreted Mandel to require justification for an alien’s exclusion. In MacDonald v. Kleindienst, 72 Civ. 1228 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 1972) (MacDonald I), a three-judge court ordered the Secretary of State to set forth his reasons for refusing to waive the ineligibility of an alien. Then in MacDonald v. Kleindienst, 72 Civ. 1228 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 1974) (MacDonald II), Judge Tenney accepted the reasons tendered as “facially legitimate and bona fide.” Id. at 14, quoting from Mandel, supra, 408 U.S. at 770.

In each of these cases — Mandel, MacDonald I and MacDonald II — the claim was grounded on an alleged violation of First Amendment rights of American citizens over which the federal courts clearly had jurisdiction. The significant distinguishing feature of the instant case is that no constitutional rights of American citizens over which a federal court[*557] would have jurisdiction are “implicated” here.

If Vincenzo were “legally” within the United States, he might well have standing in the federal courts to require the Department of State to follow its own regulations. But he is not here legally. To give him rights due to his unlawful presence greater than those he would have had if he had not come to this country, would be the worst sort of bootstrapping and would encourage aliens to enter this country surreptitiously. See Licea-Gomez v. Pilliod, 193 F.Supp. 577, 582 (N.D.Ill.1960). [4]

We hold, in short, that the district court correctly decided that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review what happened to Vincenzo in Italy or what he claims the Department of State did to him here.

Affirmed.

1

. Burrafato does not challenge the correctness of the finding that he was deportable under Section 241(a)(1) of the Act.

The privilege of voluntary departure permits an alien to avoid the stigma of deportation and may facilitate the possibility of his reentry into the United States. Strantzaiis v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 465 F.2d 1016 (3 Cir. 1972).
2

. This is one of those cases where, in order better to focus on what this claim is about, it may be helpful to emphasize what is not claimed.

[*556] Appellants do not claim denial of due process in the deportation proceedings which would give the federal courts jurisdiction to insure that administrative tribunals conform to the traditional standards of fairness encompassed by due process in determining whether aliens who have entered the United States are deportable. Bolanos v. Kiley, 509 F.2d 1023, 1025-26 (2 Cir. 1975); Galven v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 530 (1954); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953).

Nor do appellants seek review of the denial of the visa application by the United States Consul in Palermo on grounds of lack of due process. Indeed, counsel for Vincenzo specifically denied that any review of the consular determination was sought in the instant litigation. As we held long ago, “Whether the consul has acted reasonably or unreasonably, is not for us to determine. Unjustifiable refusal to visé a passport may be ground for diplomatic complaint by the nation whose subject has been discriminated against . . . . It is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.” United States ex rel. London v. Phelps, 22 F.2d 288, 290 (2 Cir. 1927), cert. denied, 276 U.S. 630 (1928).

3

. The government’s affidavit in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint in the district court stated that the reason for denial of a visa to Vincenzo was his “association with organized criminal society” in Italy. Section 212(a)(27) of the Act was cited as the applicable section under which he was excludable.

4

. We have carefully considered appellants’ any jurisdictional basis for their action. other claims and we find they do not provide