
In Colindres v. United States Department of State, Edvin A. Colindres Juarez, a Guatemalan national, faced denial of a U.S. visa, which he and his wife, Kristen Colindres, a U.S. citizen, argued violated her constitutional right to marriage. Edvin had entered the U.S. without inspection as a teenager and spent over two decades there before attempting to regularize his status. His visa was denied under suspicion of criminal association, which led the couple to seek judicial review on constitutional grounds.
Visa Application Process and Initial Denial
Edvin Colindres applied for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, approved by U.S. immigration authorities to address his time in the country without status. In 2019, he attended his visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala. After providing documentation, including a clean Guatemalan criminal record, his visa application was denied. The consular officer cited 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), suggesting reasonable grounds to believe Edvin was affiliated with a criminal organization, disqualifying him from reentry into the U.S.
The Colindreses argued that this denial imposed an undue burden on Kristen’s marital rights as a U.S. citizen, asserting her right to live with her husband in the U.S.
District Court Ruling on Consular Non-Reviewability
The district court dismissed the case based on the doctrine of consular non-reviewability, which prevents most judicial challenges to visa denials. According to the court, this doctrine only allows for limited exceptions, such as statutory authorization or when an American citizen’s constitutional rights are burdened. While marriage is a fundamental right, the court found that it does not guarantee an automatic right for spouses to live together in the U.S. Given this, the district court ruled that the visa denial did not burden Kristen’s rights sufficiently to fall within a constitutional exception.
Appeal and D.C. Circuit’s Analysis
The Colindreses appealed, seeking to establish that Kristen’s marital rights had been violated by the visa denial. However, the D.C. Circuit upheld the district court’s decision. The court referenced Swartz v. Rogers (1958) and Kerry v. Din (2015), ruling that the right to marriage does not include an inherent right for spouses to live together in the U.S. In line with these precedents, the court emphasized that consular decisions are largely immune from judicial review and affirmed that Kristen’s marital rights had not been unconstitutionally burdened by the denial.
Consular Non-Reviewability Doctrine and Visa Denial Standards
The court reaffirmed that consular non-reviewability shields visa decisions from judicial interference, except when a specific statute authorizes review or a constitutional rights burden is shown. Neither condition applied in this case. The court further evaluated whether the visa denial met the standard of providing a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. The consular officer’s reference to § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) was deemed sufficient, as it allowed visa denial based on suspected criminal association.
The Colindreses challenged this reasoning, asserting that Edvin’s clean record contradicted the government’s grounds for denial. However, the court ruled that the consular officer’s statutory citation met the requirement for a bona fide denial, as it provided a specific factual basis for ineligibility.
Conclusion
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Colindres v. United States Department of State emphasized the judiciary’s limited role in visa-related immigration decisions, especially where consular discretion and national security concerns are involved. The decision clarified that the constitutional right to marriage does not guarantee a foreign spouse’s residency in the U.S. The case reinforced the application of consular non-reviewability and the high threshold for constitutional exceptions in visa matters.