San Francisco, CA -- Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus expresses disappointment in the outcome of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kerry v. Din. Advancing Justice - ALC and co-counsel in Sidley Austin LLP represent Ms. Fauzia Din. 

 For the past decade, the only information Ms. Din has received regarding her husband's visa denial has been a vague "national security" allegation provided by the State Department. Today, while the Court did not reach any consensus on whether a U.S. citizen's constitutional interests have been affected, the Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that Americans like Ms. Din can indeed be separated from their spouses abroad without any real explanation.

 "Ms. Din is an American citizen whose life has been turned upside down for nine years. We are surprised and disturbed by the Supreme Court's ruling that a mere citation to a statute that is seven pages long is sufficient justification for separating this couple for the past nine years," said Chris Punongbayan, Executive Director of the Asian Law Caucus.

 Our client, Fauzia Din, has been separated from her husband for nearly a decade. In 2006, Ms. Din, a U.S. citizen from Fremont, California, traveled to Afghanistan to marry her fiancé and family friend. Immediately after her wedding, she applied for her husband's U.S. visa. The newlyweds expected to start living together in the United States right away and start a family.

 After a three-year delay, the State Department finally issued a response: the visa was denied, and no reason was provided other than a vague "national security" allegation. Ms. Din is an in-home caretaker in Fremont. Her husband is a low-level clerk in the Afghan Ministry of Education. During her struggle to secure her husband's visa, dozens of family members, friends, and coworkers have come forward to vouch for him.

 In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Kerry v. Din that the State Department was required to provide a legitimate basis for the visa denial. The government sought review of the decision by the US Supreme Court, which heard arguments for the case in February.

 "I am terribly disappointed to hear the Supreme Court's decision. My husband and I did nothing wrong. We got married and expected to live together in the United States, my home. I will continue to do everything I can to bring my husband here so we can finally start our life together," said Ms. Din.

 In February, the legal team submitted a new visa application for Ms. Din's husband. While the original visa application was prepared without the benefit of legal counsel, the new application makes a thorough case for Ms. Din's husband to be admitted to the United States. The application includes nine character references from individuals, including some who have worked for U.S. government agencies, who attest to his extremely honest, trustworthy, and generous nature. Ms. Din's husband has worked for decades to help Afghans and has suffered through decades of war; Ms. Din deserves to be able to start her life with her husband in the United States. We are awaiting a response from the State Department.

 Mark Haddad, a partner at Sidley Austin, and lead counsel who argued the case before the Court for Ms. Din said, "We are disappointed that the Court did not impose a higher standard of accountability for the government when denying a visa to the spouse of an American citizen. The Court has recognized, however, that working as a payroll clerk in the Afghan government during the Taliban occupation does not appear to satisfy the factual prerequisites for denying a visa. We are hopeful that the State Department now will reconsider and grant the renewed visa application in light of all the facts we have now presented."