Marcelina Diaz Rivera De Gomez v. Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United States
Marcelina Diaz RIVERA De GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry A. KISSINGER, Secretary of State of the United States, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Marcelina Diaz Rivera de Gomez, a United States citizen, brought this action against the Secretary of State, the Director of the Visa Office of the Department of State, the United States Consul at Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the New York District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that her marriage to Cecilio Trifilio Gomez-Tejada is valid and an order enjoining the defendant Consul from denying Gomez-Tejada’s application for an immigrant visa on the basis of the invalidity of that marriage. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, J., granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the action, holding that “This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the acts of American consular officials abroad in determining whether or not to issue a visa.” Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction under section 279 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1329 .
This precise issue was recently before the district court in Pena v. Kissinger, 409 F.Supp. 1182 (S.D.N.Y., 1976). We agree with the reasoning and result of Judge Pollack in that case, and conclude that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 , 92 S.Ct. 2576 , 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), and of this court in 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 , 44 U.S.L.W. 3471 (1976), preclude any judicial review of the consular decision not to issue a visa in this case. We reject the argument that section 279 authorizes the sort of judicial interference in the visa-issuing process sought by plaintiff.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Garcia v. Baker
- Martinez ex rel. Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Bell
- William A. Kent v. United States of America Department of State Robert A. Strauss, Ambassador to Russia
- Wan Shih Hsieh v. Maurice F. Kiley, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice
- American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano
- American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.