Bozorgkhoo v. Blinken
2:24-cv-03154
E.D. Cal.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (one U.S. citizen and five Iranian nationals) sought mandamus and injunctive relief to compel adjudication of immigrant visas delayed after consular interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi.
- Seven of the original thirteen plaintiffs received visas during litigation and dismissed their claims; the case proceeded with the remaining six (two family groups).
- Plaintiffs challenged delays of 14-19 months post-interview, arguing unreasonableness under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and sought relief under both the APA §706(1)-(2) and Mandamus Act.
- Defendants (U.S. officials) moved to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment, raising the doctrines of consular non-reviewability, lack of a clear duty, and arguing no APA violation for delay.
- The court analyzed delay claims under the APA only, finding Mandamus relief would not be available if the APA claim failed.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the delays were not unreasonable and other APA claims non-cognizable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Consular Non-Reviewability | § 221(g) refusals are not final, so judicial review is available | § 221(g) refusals were final; doctrine bars review | Not final decisions; doctrine does not apply |
| APA Unreasonable Delay | Delays of 14-19 months after interview are unreasonable and harm families | Such delays are typical, justified, and not unreasonable under case law | Delays not unreasonable; summary judgment for defendants |
| Standing/Indispensable Party | Iranian applicants have standing without U.S. petitioner as named plaintiff | Mohanna U.S. citizen petitioner is not named plaintiff, so no standing | No U.S. citizen co-plaintiff required; standing exists |
| Other APA § 706(2) Claims | Defendants’ policies arbitrarily frustrate visa adjudication/finality | These are disguised delay claims, no final agency action to challenge | No cognizable § 706(2) claim; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036 (summary judgment standards)
- Dept. of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899 (doctrine of consular non-reviewability outlined)
- Indep. Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502 (APA and Mandamus relief analyzed similarly)
- Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242 (pleading standards in favor of plaintiff)