Bouarfa v. Mayorkas: when an approved I-130 is revoked for a "sham marriage," federal courts cannot review itBouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6 (2024)

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

Case at a glance

Background: can an approved I-130 be taken back?

When a U.S. citizen or green card holder files an I-130 for a relative, approval is only the first step; the beneficiary must then go through a consular interview or adjust status inside the United States (I-485) to obtain a green card. In the meantime, INA 205 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to revoke an approved petition "at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause." Under 8 CFR 205.2, before revoking, the agency must issue a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit evidence and rebut the grounds for revocation; after revocation, the petitioner may appeal within 15 days of service.

Related to this is the "marriage fraud bar" of INA 204(c): if the beneficiary previously sought immigration status through a marriage entered into to evade the immigration laws, or attempted or conspired to enter into such a marriage, any later petition filed for that person by anyone may not be approved. The bar is mandatory, however genuine the current marriage or family relationship may be.

INA 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that federal courts may not review decisions that the law expressly commits to the "discretion" of the Secretary or the Attorney General. The question in this case was whether USCIS's revocation of an approved I-130 on sham marriage grounds is such an unreviewable discretionary decision.

Facts

Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 for her husband, Ala'a Hamayel, a Palestinian national, and USCIS initially approved it. About two years later, USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke, stating that there was evidence Hamayel had entered into a sham marriage roughly ten years earlier to evade the immigration laws. Bouarfa denied this and pointed out that Hamayel's ex-wife had later recanted, saying her earlier statement had been made under duress. USCIS nonetheless revoked the approval under INA 205, and the BIA affirmed after reviewing the sham marriage finding anew.

Bouarfa sued in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court then granted review.

Questions presented

• Is USCIS's revocation of an approved I-130 under INA 205 on sham marriage grounds a discretionary decision that courts may not review under 242(a)(2)(B)(ii)?
• Does the mandatory bar of INA 204(c) turn revocation into a "non-discretionary" mandatory duty that is therefore reviewable?

How the Court ruled

The Court unanimously held that revocation is a discretionary decision and is not reviewable. The opinion's core reasoning rests on the wording of section 205 itself:

“It is clear on the face of §1155 that the revocation provision is a quintessential grant of discretion to the Secretary.”

Phrases such as "at any time" and "for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause" show that the law leaves whether and when to revoke to the Secretary's judgment. The Court therefore held that 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of such revocations.

On Bouarfa's main argument, the Court reasoned that the "may not be approved" language of INA 204(c) governs only the stage before approval; it does not become a continuing duty to revoke after approval. So even when the reason for revocation is a sham marriage, the revocation itself remains discretionary. The Court also noted that both parties agreed that a USCIS decision invoking the 204(c) marriage fraud bar can be challenged under the APA (the Supreme Court stated that it has never so held); but revocation and applying 204(c) at the approval stage are two different things, and revocation itself remains discretionary.

The Court also pointed to two paths forward:

• The petitioner can contest the matter fully in the administrative process: respond to the notice of intent to revoke, submit evidence and appeal to the BIA (in this case the BIA did review the sham marriage finding anew).
• The petitioner can file a new petition. The opinion states:

“As the Government concedes, nothing prohibits a citizen from filing another petition on behalf of the same relative.”

Bouarfa herself had already filed a new I-130. If the new petition is denied on sham marriage grounds, she can seek judicial review of that denial.

In addition, the opinion explains in a footnote that the parties agreed the case does not involve review of "constitutional claims or questions of law" under 242(a)(2)(D); the Court expressly declined to express a view on whether suits alleging that a revocation proceeding violated the Constitution or procedural requirements are reviewable.

What this means for applicants

I-130 petitioners (U.S. citizens or green card holders)

• I-130 approval is not the finish line. Generally, until the beneficiary obtains a green card, USCIS may revoke under INA 205. The response to a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) is often the decisive step.
• The path of suing in federal district court after a revocation is essentially closed, so the administrative process (responding to the NOIR, appealing to the BIA) becomes far more important.

Beneficiaries with a prior marriage-based immigration history

• If you previously sought immigration status through marriage (whether or not that petition was approved or withdrawn), any later immigration petition may examine whether that earlier marriage was genuine. Once 204(c) applies, it is permanent, and there is no waiver.
• Statements by a former spouse (including statements made under pressure or during a divorce dispute) may become adverse evidence. Preserve and gather as much evidence as possible that the earlier marriage was genuine (living together, finances, photos, statements from family and friends, etc.).

Applicants in other categories

• INA 205 also applies to other petitions approved under INA 204 (for example, the employment-based I-140). The Court's reasoning focuses on the discretionary nature of section 205 itself, so it is also relevant to revocations in other categories, but how it applies in practice will depend on later case law.

Later developments

• Evidentiary standard for sham marriage findings: In Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2019), the BIA explained that applying 204(c) requires "substantial and probative evidence," and that, considering all the evidence, it must be shown that it is "more than probably true" that the marriage was a sham. That standard continues to apply to USCIS and BIA findings after Bouarfa.
• An overall narrowing of judicial review: Bouarfa follows the same line as Patel v. Garland (2022); both use 242(a)(2)(B) to limit federal court review of immigration agency decisions.
• Unanswered questions: the Supreme Court expressly left for another day whether challenges to a revocation on constitutional or procedural grounds are reviewable. As of October 2026, check the latest case law in each circuit.

Practical advice: what to do now

1. Take a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) seriously: submit complete rebuttal evidence and a written argument within the deadline in the notice. This may be your only chance to make your full case.
2. Appeal on time after a revocation: under 8 CFR 205.2(d), the appeal must be filed within 15 days after service of the revocation notice, a very short deadline. Appeals of I-130 revocations generally go to the BIA.
3. Consider refiling: if new evidence can be added, consider filing a new I-130; if the new petition is denied under 204(c), you can seek federal court review of that denial. Whether to appeal first, refile, or do both in parallel should be decided by an attorney based on the evidence.
4. If the beneficiary has a marriage-based immigration history, assess before filing: obtain the earlier immigration file (for example through a G-639 Freedom of Information Act request) to learn whether USCIS suspected or recorded a sham marriage at the time.
5. Keep statements consistent and disclose truthfully: questions on the forms about prior marriages and prior immigration petitions must be answered truthfully. Concealment can itself create another ground of inadmissibility.

Frequently asked questions

Opinion text and sources

• U.S. Supreme Court docket No. 23-583
• Cornell LII: full text of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
• Justia: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
• U.S. Code, 8 U.S.C. 1155 (INA 205, revocation)
• U.S. Code, 8 U.S.C. 1154 (INA 204, including 204(c))
• Federal regulations, 8 CFR 205.2 (revocation on notice)
• EOIR: BIA and Attorney General precedent decisions (including Matter of P. Singh)

Related reading

• Form I-130 explained: petition for alien relative
• Marriage green card: how U.S. citizens and green card holders petition for a spouse
• Form I-751 explained: removing conditions on a marriage-based green card
• Patel v. Garland: factual findings in discretionary relief are unreviewable
• Department of State v. Muñoz: no due process suit over a spouse's visa refusal

This page is a general introduction to a court decision and is not legal advice. The law and case law change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts. To evaluate your situation, consult an attorney.