Almaqrami v. Tillerson
304 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- In March 2017 President Trump issued Executive Order 13780 §2(c), suspending entry for nationals of six countries, including Iran and Yemen; the State Department instructed consular officers to refuse diversity visas to applicants not exempt or waived.
- Plaintiffs (nationals of Yemen and Iran) challenged the State Department policy as unlawful and sought mandamus and injunctive relief to force processing/issuance of FY2017 diversity visas and/or reservation of unused visa numbers pending resolution of the Executive Order's legality.
- On Sept. 29, 2017 the court denied relief to require immediate visa issuance (finding the Supreme Court’s stay limited relief to those with bona fide U.S. relationships) but exercised mandamus/equitable power to order the State Department to report unused FY2017 visa numbers and to hold them for possible future processing.
- The State Department reported 27,241 unused diversity visa numbers and that 49,976 diversity visas were issued for FY2017.
- The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently held that §2(c) expired by its terms, dismissed as moot the challenges in IRAP and Hawaii, and expressed no view on the merits; the government moved to dismiss this case as moot and for failure to state a claim.
- The district court concluded Plaintiffs’ claims are moot because §2(c)’s expiration and the passing of the fiscal-year deadline deprived the court of any meaningful relief, and therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness from fiscal-year deadline (Sept. 30) | Court may use equitable powers or enforce prior order to process visas after deadline because Plaintiff sought relief before deadline | Statutory deadline in 8 U.S.C. §1154 bars issuance after Sept. 30, so injury is not redressable | Court: passing of Sept. 30 does not necessarily moot claims if court ordered relief before deadline, but overall mootness resolved on other ground |
| Mootness from expiration of §2(c) of EO 13780 | Challenge is to State Dept. policy implementing §2(c); defendants’ reliance on expired EO does not moot case because policy and justification persist | Supreme Court’s dismissal of IRAP and Hawaii as moot because §2(c) expired means related challenges (including policies implementing §2(c)) are moot | Court: expiration of §2(c) and Supreme Court’s actions mooted the controversy; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Availability of equitable relief/enforcement of prior order | Prior order required reservation of unused visa numbers; court can enforce that order or use equity to require future processing | Courts cannot override statutory visa deadline by equity; past cases purportedly limited to enforcing prior orders only | Court: even accepting equitable enforcement theory, the prerequisite (Supreme Court finding EO unlawful) did not occur, so no meaningful relief remains |
| Justiciability/consular non-reviewability | Plaintiffs previously argued consular actions reviewable here; sought mandamus | Government argued non-reviewability; also challenged merits | Court previously rejected consular non-reviewability for preliminary relief, but dismissed case now on mootness without reaching merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts presume lack of jurisdiction) (general jurisdictional principle)
- Trump v. IRAP, 138 S. Ct. 353 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (Supreme Court found §2(c) expired and dismissed challenge as moot)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 377 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (same disposition as IRAP)
- Paunescu v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (district court authorized equitable relief to process diversity visas past fiscal-year deadline)
- Przhebelskaya v. United States Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (similar principle preserving relief when sought before fiscal-year end)
- McBryde v. Comm. to Review, 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (case must be dismissed as moot when no meaningful relief can be granted)