## Facts

- Alfred Mayle, a U.S. citizen, was introduced by phone to Beatrice Nkwogu, a resident of Nigeria.
- About six months later, Mayle traveled to Nigeria, met Nkwogu in person, and the couple decided to marry.
- To seek a K‑1 fiancée visa for Nkwogu, Mayle filed Form I‑129F with USCIS; after USCIS approval, Nkwogu had to apply for the visa at a U.S. consulate abroad.
- USCIS approved Mayle’s first I‑129F petition, but the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria denied Nkwogu’s K‑1 visa application.
- Mayle filed a second I‑129F petition; USCIS approved it as well.
- The consulate again refused the K‑1 visa. The refusal stated that Nkwogu did not convince the consular officer that the relationship was bona fide.
- After the refusal, the petition was returned to USCIS, and Mayle was later informed that the petition’s validity period had expired and would not be revalidated.
- Mayle sued federal officials (including Attorney General Eric Holder), seeking relief framed under the mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and asserting constitutional due process theories to challenge the visa refusal.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of consular nonreviewability barred a federal district court from reviewing a consular officer’s refusal of a K‑1 fiancée visa.
2. Whether, in light of Kerry v. Din, a U.S. citizen has a protected liberty interest in a foreign fiancée’s admission that would permit limited judicial review of the refusal.
3. Whether mandamus or the APA provided a basis to compel reconsideration or adjudication of the consular visa decision.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that a consular officer’s visa refusal is generally not reviewable in federal court under consular nonreviewability.
- Relying on Kerry v. Din, the court concluded Mayle did not plead a constitutionally protected liberty interest that would allow the court to reach the merits of the visa refusal.
- The court rejected Mayle’s attempt to obtain review through mandamus because visa issuance/refusal is not a clear, ministerial duty that a court can compel.
- The court held the APA did not supply jurisdiction to review the consular officer’s refusal in this context.
- The case was dismissed without the court deciding whether the consulate was correct to doubt the relationship’s bona fides.

## Legal Principles

- Consular officers’ decisions to issue or refuse visas are generally insulated from judicial review (consular nonreviewability).
- A court may consider a narrow constitutional challenge only if the plaintiff shows a qualifying constitutional interest; after Kerry v. Din, a citizen generally cannot claim a constitutional right to have a spouse—and even less a fiancée—admitted to the United States.
- Mandamus requires a clear and nondiscretionary duty; courts cannot use mandamus to control a consular officer’s visa determination.
- APA review is unavailable where review is precluded by law or where the action is committed to agency discretion, including traditional nonreviewability of consular visa refusals.
- Internal executive-branch guidance about evaluating the bona fides of relationships does not, by itself, create a judicially enforceable standard for reviewing a consular refusal.

## Conclusion

Mayle v. Holder dismissed a U.S. citizen’s mandamus/APA and due process challenge to the denial of his Nigerian fiancée’s K‑1 visa, holding that consular nonreviewability barred judicial review and that, under Kerry v. Din, the citizen did not have a protected liberty interest sufficient to open the door to federal court review of the consular officer’s refusal.


Mayle v. Holder, 2015 WL 4193864 (2015)