May the State Department make a redetermination under 8 USC § 1182(a)(2)(G)?

Question

Once the State Department makes a determination that a person is an "alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22," the person becomes inadmissible to the United States (8 USC § 1182(a)(2)(G)).

(This is subject to exceptions while such person might happen to benefit from a diplomatic visa; I also understand there is also a path for the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue a waiver.)

My question is: separate from the exceptions just listed, may the State Department make a redetermination under 8 USC § 1182(a)(2)(G), or is the State Department forever bound to the conclusion of its initial determination of inadmissibility? If a redetermination is possible, are there procedural prerequisites? (E.g. must there be an application? Must there be fresh evidence?)

Answer 1

8 U.S. Code § 1182(a)(2)(G) states: "An alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22" is inadmissible to the United States.

Regarding the question of whether the State Department may make a redetermination under 8 U.S. Code § 1182(a)(2)(G), there does not appear to be any binding precedent directly on point. However, it is generally accepted that administrative agencies have the authority to reconsider and modify their decisions, as long as they follow the appropriate procedures for doing so. In the context of the State Department, this may involve allowing the individual to submit a request for reconsideration, providing an opportunity for a hearing, and considering any new evidence that may be relevant to the determination. It is important to note that the State Department's authority to make redeterminations may be limited by other provisions of law, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets forth certain requirements for agency rulemaking and decision-making.

The doctrine of stare decisis, or the doctrine of precedent, generally applies to judicial decisions, rather than administrative decisions. Administrative agencies have the authority to interpret and apply the laws and regulations that they are responsible for enforcing, but their decisions are typically not considered binding precedent in the same way that judicial decisions are. This is because administrative decisions are typically not subject to the same level of review and oversight as judicial decisions, and are not necessarily based on the same principles of law. However, administrative decisions can still be persuasive and may be considered as persuasive authority in certain situations.