Bagherian v. Pompeo, 442 F.Supp.3d 87

Plaintiff Behzad Bagherian (U.S. citizen) filed a K-1 petition for his fiancée, Faezeh Abbasi (Iranian national), on August 19, 2016.
Abbasi’s petition was approved and she was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan on November 29, 2016; the consular officer invoked INA § 221(g) and placed the file in administrative processing.
After Presidential Proclamation 9645 (Sept. 24, 2017) barred entry by certain nationals (including Iran), the Embassy informed Abbasi on Jan. 4, 2018 that she was ineligible under § 212(f) but that a consular officer was reviewing her for a Proclamation waiver; the file remained in administrative processing with repeated requests for information.
Abbasi sued on April 14, 2019 seeking (1) a declaratory judgment under the APA to compel completion of administrative processing and (2) a writ of mandamus to compel a final decision on her waiver eligibility.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of consular non-reviewability	Bagherian/Abbasi seek adjudication of waiver eligibility, not review of a consular refusal; doctrine therefore inapplicable	Consular non-reviewability bars judicial review of consular visa decisions	Court: Doctrine inapplicable here because no final consular decision on the waiver—plaintiff challenges delay, not the initial refusal
Mootness	An order compelling adjudication would change plaintiff’s rights because waiver remains pending	Visa was "denied," so any order would be automatically complied with by a denial, making case moot	Court: Not moot—the waiver adjudication remains pending and relief could affect plaintiff’s rights
APA (reviewability and unreasonable delay)	Agency delay in adjudicating waiver eligibility is reviewable and has been unreasonably delayed (~25 months)	Actions implementing a presidential proclamation may be nonreviewable; even if reviewable, the delay is reasonable given national-security interests and volume of cases	Court: Assumed reviewability but held the ~25-month delay is not unreasonable under the TRAC factors; APA claim fails
Mandamus to compel decision	Mandamus is appropriate to compel agency action unreasonably delayed	Mandamus inappropriate because delay not unreasonable and relief would let plaintiff "jump the queue"	Court: Mandamus denied for same reasons as APA claim and because granting relief would improperly reorder agency priorities

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (upheld Presidential Proclamation 9645)
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (consular visa decisions generally not reviewable)
Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for assessing unreasonable delay)
In re People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran, 680 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (application of TRAC factors)
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (no fixed-month rule; consider complexity and resources)
In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (court should avoid putting a plaintiff ahead of others in agency queue)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (executive action and APA applicability)
Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (mandamus should not let plaintiffs leapfrog similarly situated applicants)
Skalka v. Kelly, 246 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2017) (immigration-processing delays often not unreasonable)