Published on:

Supreme Court Denies U.S. Citizen’s Entry Visa Appeal for Afghan Husband

Several immigrants want to live in the United States but the encompassing authority of the U.S. government to deny them entry is a major hindrance to their dreams and ambitions. While there are a number of ways that undocumented immigrants can explore in an attempt to live in the U.S., there is no guarantee that government authorities will grant them the legal status that they want. One way of entering the United States legally is through marriage to a U.S. citizen. It is important for immigrants to be aware of the fact that this is far from being a guaranteed method of entering U.S. territory. Recently, a resident of California failed to obtain an entry visa for her husband who hails from Afghanistan.

Fauzia Din, a citizen of the U.S., sought to gain an entry visa for her husband, Kanishka Berashk. Berashk, an Afghan, worked for a government agency while his country was under the regime of the Taliban. The Supreme Court found this connection to be enough grounds for refusing him entry into U.S. territory. Citing a provision in the law that dealt with terrorist activities, the Supreme Court justices refused to grant Berashk an entry visa. The case proves to be a sobering display of the considerable power that the U.S. government has to bar immigrants from entering U.S. territory.

The Supreme Court justices imposed its verdict by a 5-4 vote in favor of denying Berashk’s request for an entry visa. Din expressed dismay upon receiving the ruling stating that she expected the Supreme Court to grant them their request because of her “constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse.” The 5 justices who decided to veto the couple’s request declared that the constitutional right to live in the U.S. with one’s spouse does not, in fact, exist. The justices went further by saying that even if the said right did exist, the court still fulfilled the requirement of due process by refusing to grant Berashk entry because of the law’s provision on terrorism.

Some of the justices who voted in favor of Din and Berashk’s request stated that the law’s provision on terrorism is senseless because it could be used to refer to a broad sweep of human activity. In this case, Berashk’s work as a civil servant was used against him as a result of the law’s reference to terrorist activities. The justices who favored Din and Berashk’s case did state that government failed to fulfill Din’s right to live with her husband.

Cases involving the complexities of immigration law require the knowledge of a capable team of lawyers. If you or someone you know needs legal counsel regarding immigration issues, please contact the immigration attorneys at Lyttle Law Firm in Austin, Texas by visiting our website or calling us today at 512-215-5225.


Contact Information