C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER E—VISAS › PART 41—VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF NONIMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED › Subpart I—Fiance(e)s and Other Nonimmigrants

22 C.F.R. § 41.82

Certain parents and children of section 101(a)(27)(I) special immigrants. [Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: Naseri v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Naseri v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025). “81(e)’s language, finding that any mandatory duty to reconsider that it imposed was triggered only upon the consular officer determining that the visa applicant had adduced further “evidence tending to overcome the ground of eligibility.”
Moradi v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025). “at 263 (emphasis in original) (quoting 22 C.F.R. § 41.82 (e)). That determination, Ramizi reasoned, requires “the exercise of discretionary judgment by the consular officer reviewing such evidence,” which is a task that is “necessarily [] highly subjective” and for which “there…”
Forouzandeh v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025). “81(e)’s language, finding that any mandatory duty to reconsider that it imposed was triggered only upon the consular officer determining that the visa applicant had adduced further “evidence tending to overcome the ground of eligibility.”
Esmaeilzadeh v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025). “81(e)’s language, finding that any mandatory duty to reconsider that it imposed was triggered only upon the consular officer determining that the visa applicant had adduced further “evidence tending to overcome the ground of eligibility.”
Dehshiri v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2025). “at 263 (empha- sis in original) (quoting 22 C.F.R. § 41.82 (e)). That determination, Ramizi reasoned, requires “the exercise of discretionary judgment by the consular officer reviewing such evidence,” which is a task that is “necessarily [] highly subjective” and for which…”
Alnaddaf v. Rubio (D.D.C. 2026). “81(e)’s language, finding that any mandatory duty to reconsider that it imposed was triggered only upon the consular officer determining that the visa applicant had adduced further “evidence tending to overcome the ground of eligibility.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.