Tania Golkar v. JOHN F. KERRY, United States Secretary of State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIA GOLKAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN F. KERRY, United States Secretary
of State; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JEH
JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-57044
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04845-JFW-
FFM
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges and DANIEL,* Senior District
Judge.
The Memorandum Disposition filed on April 18, 2014, is amended as
follows: replace footnote 3 on page 5 with the following text:
The government argues that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(3), a
consular officer is not required to provide any written “notice
stating the determination or listing the specific provision or
FILED
AUG 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

provisions of law under which that alien is inadmissible if the
alien is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2) or (3).” But
the Golkars only learned the visa was denied under § 1182(a)(3)
after their congressman informed them of that fact years later; in
the denial itself, the consular officer simply cited to § 1182(a). It
is therefore impossible to know from the face of the denial
whether the consular officer complied with a mandatory
procedure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(b)(1) (“[T]he officer shall
provide the alien with a timely written notice that . . . lists the
specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is
inadmissible”). Contrary to the government’s argument, this case
stands apart from Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015). There, the
consular officer informed the visa applicant that his visa was
denied under § 1182(a)(3)(B), and the Court concluded that under
§ 1182(b), the consular officer was not required to provide any
more specific information than that. See id. at 2141. Here, the
denial cited no subsection of § 1182(a) at all.
The Petition for Panel Rehearing is otherwise DENIED, and no further
petitions for rehearing will be accepted.

-- 2 of 2 --