We'll hear argument next in case 23, 583, Buarfa versus Mayorkas.

Mr. DeGurzin.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

In Section 1154C, Congress unequivocally stated that no petition shall be approved if the beneficiary engaged in a sham marriage.

In context, that requirement applies not just to the day of approval,

but to the next day as well. In other words, the petition cannot remain approved if the agency

reconsider its initial decision and concludes that there was a share marriage. That's because

an approved visa petition confers no substantive benefits. It is simply a piece of paper signifying

that a beneficiary is eligible to apply for a green card. If Congress believed you shouldn't

get that piece of paper saying that you're eligible when you've been in a sham marriage,

then the agency has to take it away when it determines that you are not, in fact, eligible.

That resolves this case. Because the revocation here was non-discretionary, it is reviewable.

The government seeks to shield itself from judicial review by claiming it has discretion to not revoke the petition,

even after a sham marriage finding. Yet it identifies no circumstance in which it has

ever or would ever exercise that purported discretion. Nor does it explain what purpose such

discretion could serve if, as the government appears to believe, it's not actually allowed to

give the beneficiary a green card. The discretion appears to simply be the discretion to

allow a person to hold on to a now meaningless piece of paper that has been drained of all of its

value. That cannot be the kind of discretion that Congress sought to protect. The government's view

also layers one anomaly on top of another. Most significantly, it creates a disparity in review

between an initial

decision and a reconsideration of that same decision based on the same criteria. And the

...