Ms. Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen challenged the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and certain DOS officials’ failure to meaningfully review substantial evidence that her husband, a Guatemalan citizen, is not a gang member. The agency and its officials denied his immigrant visa due to alleged membership in Barrio Azteca, a transnational gang. Information from highly credible experts on this gang, timely-submitted after the visa denial, demonstrates that it is factually impossible for her husband to be a Barrio Azteca member.
DOS regulations require consular officers to reconsider a visa denial if “further evidence tending to overcome” the ground for denial is submitted within one year of the denial. One consular officer claimed the husband lied during his interview about his tattoos. Another consular officer said the husband looked like a gangster and a convict and claimed that he knew from the husband’s appearance that he was a Barrio Azteca member. Yet statements submitted after the visa denial from the three experts focused on certain facts such as all gang members being Mexican or of Mexican heritage and the Guatemalan husband’s tattoos being incompatible with Barrio Azteca membership. One of the experts, who also advises DOS, offered to provide information to the agency, as he had in the past “in reference to gang affiliation of those seeking an entry visa.” No one contacted the experts and the Embassy reiterated the ground for denial. The husband remains abroad.
Ms. Rodriguez maintained that DOS and agency officials violated agency regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to meaningfully review the additional evidence. Ms. Rodriguez also maintained that her First Amendment rights to associate in person with her husband are harmed by the visa denial and that bad faith occurred in the denial and failure to meaningfully review post-denial, warranting judicial review. Ms. Rodriguez sought declarations by the court of unlawful government action and meaningful review of the additional evidence as the government reconsiders her husband’s visa application. The government filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Ms. Rodriguez’s claims of regulatory and APA violations were actually a challenge to the visa refusal, and therefore the consular nonreviewability doctrine barred the court from granting relief. The government also argued that Ms. Rodriguez did not demonstrate that the agency or officers acted in bad faith, which is required to overcome the doctrine and receive even limited judicial review. On March 20, 2026, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the consular nonreviewability doctrine applied and rejecting Ms. Rodriguez’s arguments that the bad faith exception applied to enable judicial review.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee by the American Immigration Council, the Consular Accountability Project, and Neal & Harwell, PLC.
