Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State

── Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISAIAS SANCHEZ GONZALEZ No. 23-4205 and CELENIA YAQUELINE D.C. No. GUTIERREZ, 2:23-cv-00459- PSG-PD Plaintiffs - Appellants, OPINION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, United States Secretary of State, in his official capacity; RAFAEL FOLEY, United States Consul General, Ciudad, Juarez, Mexico, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; JOSEPH EDLOW, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants - Appellees. 2 SANCHEZ GONZALEZ V. U.S. DEPT. OF STATE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 18, 2025 Filed April 30, 2026 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Jay S. Bybee, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bybee; Concurrence by Judge Lee SUMMARY** Immigration The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a suit in which Appellants Isaias Sanchez Gonzalez and Celenia Gutierrez challenged the government’s decision to deny Sanchez’s visa application.  Judge Sandra S. Ikuta was originally a member of this panel. Following her passing on December 7, 2025, Judge S.R. Thomas was drawn to replace her. See Ninth Cir. Gen. Order 3.2.h. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  SANCHEZ GONZALEZ V. U.S. DEPT. OF STATE 3 Sanchez, a native of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 1992, married Gutierrez, a U.S. citizen, and has three U.S. citizen children. Seeking to become a lawful permanent resident, Sanchez traveled to Mexico in 2015 for an interview with a consular officer. Consular staff determined there was reason to believe he was a member of a known criminal organization and denied the visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), which is known as “3A2,” and renders inadmissible any “alien who a consular officer . . . knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any . . . unlawful activity.” Under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, federal courts cannot review a consular officer’s denial of a visa. However, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), the Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception when the visa denial allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen. Here, Appellants argued that they possessed First Amendment interests sufficient to trigger the Mandel exception. The panel held that Sanchez, as a noncitizen seeking admission, could not invoke the Mandel exception in reliance on his own First Amendment rights. The panel rejected Sanchez’s argument that his substantial connections to the United States allowed him to bring a First Amendment challenge. However, the panel held that the visa denial implicated the First Amendment right of Gutierrez, as a U.S. citizen, to hear Sanchez’s speech and thus triggered the Mandel exception. The panel held that Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024)—which held that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being 4 SANCHEZ GONZALEZ V. U.S. DEPT. OF STATE admitted to the country and thus lacks a procedural due process right to trigger Mandel—did not abrogate Mandel’s holding that limited re