@traders I added some liquidity and proposed an update to the resolution criteria based on oral arguments last week. See what you think.

Based on how this case was argued, I’m sure there are scenarios that could lead to no fair resolution of this market, in which case I’d resolve N/A.

Based on oral arguments, this is really a case of whether Visa applicants are entitled to know WHY their Visas were denied, as a matter of due process, and the related question of how much of a right they have to contest it.

Proposed resolution, assuming the court doesn’t directly say anything about tattoos:

• If the court says the applicant should have been notified in a timely manner SO THAT he could contest the assessment of immigration (in this case that his tattoos were evidence of gang membership) -> resolves YES

• If the court says immigration should be free to deny Visas including to spouses of citizens and give no reason, or delay giving a reason until there is no possibility of appeal -> resolves NO

Oral arguments last week. Background:

Cordero denies that his tattoos — which depict the comedy and tragedy theater masks, La Virgen de Guadalupe and a tribal design with a paw print — are affiliated with a gang. A court-approved gang expert concurred.

But:

Core issue is whether applicants are entitled to an explanation of why their Visa was denied (so that they can petition, if relevant, within the two year time limit).

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-23/supreme-court-los-angeles-visa-tattoos

May need clarification on this. Would a “yes” be a ruling that they can’t refuse visas based on tattoos under all circumstances or under most normal circumstances?

If they made a ruling like “most of the time you can’t be refused a visa for having a tattoo but if that tattoo says ‘I want to kill Joe Biden’ or similar then they can” would that come down as “yes” or “no”?

@DaisyWelham How about this:

• If the court rules that in this case, the plaintiff should get a Visa, it’s a YES

• If the court opines that there are principles or standards independent of tattoos that should be considered first when deciding whether to grant a Visa, such as marital status or fear of persecution, it’s a YES

• If the court says that tattoos should be considered in Visa applications alongside all other factors and may supersede those other factors, that’s a NO

• If the court says that Immigration officers have absolute and final jurisdiction over who gets Visas and courts shouldn’t intervene, that’s a NO

• If the court says Congress or some other branch of government should decide that’s a NO.

@BlueDragon I like these criteria, except for the second one. Maybe I just don’t understand it. Of course there are other factors that should be considered. The question is whether:

a) tattoos can be considered sufficient evidence by itself to deny a visa. (if they say this, I think this should resolve NO)

b) tattoos can be considered as evidence, alongside other factors, to deny a visa (if they say no, this essentially would mean that they shouldn’t be considered at all). If they say this, I personally think this should resolve NO.

Also, whatever you decide for the criteria, I would add them to the description as a dated edit with clarifications. These comments often get buried. 😉

@Santiago Thanks, I agree with both, they align with the third bullet.

I wrote the second bullet to cover the case where the court says tattoos are a factor in the absence of other factors, eg there are cases where tattoos should never be considered. I came up with it to cover the remote case where the court deems it worthwhile to supersede rather than eliminate tattoos as a factor in granting visas, but the more I think about it, the more I question whether the distinction is worth making.

I will add final wording to the description by EOD.