Garjani, Mehraveh v. Flores, Pete R.
3:24-cv-00539
| W.D. Wis. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Mehraveh Garjani, a lawful U.S. permanent resident, filed suit to compel adjudication of visa applications for her Iranian parents.
- The defendants are U.S. government officials involved in immigration and visa processing.
- The U.S. government moved to dismiss for improper venue or transfer the case to the District of Columbia, arguing Garjani had no standing in the issue.
- The court focused on whether Garjani, whose parents are visa applicants, had standing and whether venue was proper in Wisconsin.
- The court also addressed the impact of a recently enacted travel ban against Iranian citizens on the visa applications at issue.
- The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss or transfer, but ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to the travel ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert claims related to parents’ visas | Garjani suffers concrete injury from delay | Garjani lacks legally enforceable interest/standing | Garjani has standing; suffered redressable injury |
| Proper venue in Western District of Wisconsin | Garjani resides in the district | Garjani's standing insufficient for venue | Venue is proper based on Garjani’s residence |
| Transfer to District of Columbia | Unjust burden for Garjani | More convenient for defendants and documents | Balance of convenience weighs against transfer |
| Dismissal of Customs and Border Protection head | Agency involved in visa background checks | CBP not involved in adjudication | Sufficient allegation to keep Flores as defendant at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024) (distinguished; addressed substantive constitutional right to live with a spouse, not standing for delay in adjudication)
- Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2017) (standing analysis need not rest on legally enforceable rights)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (sets forth the modern test for Article III standing)
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (moving party bears burden for transfer under § 1404(a))
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for discretionary transfer under § 1404(a))