consular nonreviewability predates the founding of our Republic. See Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (D.C.Cir.1999) (noting that the doctrine “is in accordance with ... ancient principles of international law ... dating from Roman times”). We have consistently held that this doctrine prevents us from reviewing decisions reached by consular officials regarding the entry of visa applicants. See, e.g., Li Hing of Hong Kong v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 970 (9th Cir.1986) (“The doctrine of nonreviewability of a consul’s decision to grant or deny a visa stems from the Supreme Court’s confirming that the legislative power of Congress over the admission of aliens is virtually complete.”); Ventura-Escamilla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). This aligns the Ninth Circuit with courts
recognizing that court would lack jurisdiction to review denial of visa application by consul in palermo italy holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding that we review for abuse of discretion a decision to exclude a document for lack of authentication holding that when the attorney general decides that the aliens offense was a particularly serious crime we lack jurisdiction to review such a decision because it is discretionary holding that we lack jurisdiction when the relief sought is a review of the consuls decision denying them application for a visa