Lucene Bechirian; Raffi Atashian v. Antony Blinken, as Secretary of State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCENE BECHIRIAN; RAFFI
ATASHIAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ANTONY BLINKEN, as Secretary of
State; UR M. JADDOU, Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services;
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, as
Secretary of Department of Homeland
Security; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; JANE DOE, Consular Officer
of United States Embassy, Lebanon;
UNITED STATES EMBASSY,
LEBANON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55913
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-01718-PSG-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
FILED
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 5 --

for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 13, 2022
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.
Lucene Bechirian (Bechirian) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
complaint alleging that a consular officer of the United States Department of State
improperly denied the visa application of her noncitizen fiancé, Raffi Atashian
(Atashian). Bechirian specifically contends that the district court erred in holding
that her claims were barred under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Bechirian further asserts that, because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) terminated her petition after four months, she was deprived of a property
interest in approval of her petition and her fundamental right to marry in violation
of her due process rights.
The district court properly dismissed Bechirian’s due process claims under
the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.1 The doctrine of consular
** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1 Bechirian limits her appeal to the district court’s dismissal of her due
process claims, and does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of her other
claims.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

nonreviewability bars review of the denial of a noncitizen’s visa application when
“the consular officer cited an admissibility statute that specifies discrete factual
predicates the consular officer must find to exist before denying a visa or . . .
alternatively, there is a fact in the record that provides at least a facial connection
to the statutory ground of inadmissibility.” Khachatryan v. Blinken, 4 F.4th 841,
851 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).
In denying Atashian’s visa application, the consular officer cited to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1201(g),2 which “specifies discrete factual predicates the consular officer must
find to exist before denying a visa.” Khachatryan, 4 F.4th at 851 (citation
omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g); Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2018) (recognizing that 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) “instructs” a consular officer “not
to issue a visa if the officer knows or has reason to believe that such [noncitizen] is
ineligible to receive a visa under any provision of law”) (citation, footnote
reference, and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if citation to § 1201(g)
standing alone was insufficient, the consular officer also determined that Atashian
“failed to provide proof of a credible relationship” with Bechirian. Based on the
consular officer’s reliance on facially valid statutory and factual bases for denying
2 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) is § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
cited by the consular officer. See Ibrahim v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 912
F.3d 1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).
3

-- 3 of 5 --

Atashian’s visa application, dismissal of Bechirian’s due process claims was
warranted. See Khachatryan, 4 F.4th at 851.
Bechirian is unable to avoid application of the doctrine of consular
nonreviewability based on her assertion of independent due process violations
relating to USCIS’ termination of her petition. Bechirian does not establish that
she has a property interest in USCIS’ approval of her petition, particularly as the
Department of State, not USCIS, is responsible for approving a noncitizen’s visa
application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1202(h)(1) (providing that “the Secretary of State shall
require every [noncitizen] applying for a nonimmigrant visa – (1) who is at least 14
years of age and not more than 79 years of age to submit to an in person interview
with a consular officer”) (emphasis added).
Approval of an I-129 fiancé petition is “valid for a period of four months.”
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(5). Bechirian does not demonstrate that her due process rights
were violated due to this regulatory limitation, or that she otherwise had a
fundamental right to marry a noncitizen in the United States.3 As a result, the
3 Contrary to Bechirian’s argument, our decision in Ching v. Mayorkas,
725 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2013) does not support the due process interest that she
asserts. In Ching, we did not recognize a fundamental right to marry a noncitizen
in the United States. Instead, we acknowledged that the plaintiff “face[d]
imminent removal from the United States, thus undoubtedly causing immense
hardship to herself and her husband.” Id. at 1157 (emphasis added).
4

-- 4 of 5 --

doctrine of consular nonreviewability entirely bars Bechirian’s challenge to the
consular officer’s decision, and any amendment of her complaint “would have
been futile.” Doe v. Garland, 17 F.4th 941, 950 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --