exercise their discretion to reach a particular result. “Whether a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action is a question of law that we review de novo.” Kent v. Secretary of Labor, 148 F.3d 1264, 1265 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). “The doctrine [of consular nonreviewability] holds that a consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159 (D.C.Cir.1999). Although our rese 70, 971 (9th Cir.1986) (“[I]t has been consistently held that the consular official’s decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject either to administrative or judicial review.”); Burrafato v. United States Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 556 n. 2 (2d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). De Castro does not deny the viability of the
holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case recognizing that court would lack jurisdiction to review denial of visa application by consul in palermo italy holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar