Civil Action No. 2019-0397
D.D.C.Mar 19, 2020Background
- Sara Ghadami, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 for her father, Ali Akbar Ghadamy, in May 2016; the petition was approved and forwarded for consular processing.
- Ghadamy filed DS-260, interviewed July 27, 2017; his visa was refused under INA §221(g) and his case placed in "administrative processing." A March 2, 2018 refusal led to consideration for a waiver under Presidential Proclamation 9645, and the case remained pending.
- The State Department has preliminarily found the hardship and national-interest waiver prongs met but continued to review the national-security prong; processing has lasted ~25 months when suit was filed.
- Plaintiffs (Sara and her father) sued Feb. 15, 2019 alleging unreasonable delay under the APA and a due-process violation under the Fifth Amendment; they sought declaratory relief and mandamus to compel a decision.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (consular nonreviewability, mootness) and for failure to state a claim (APA, Mandamus Act, Fifth Amendment). The Court found jurisdiction but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consular nonreviewability / jurisdiction | Court may review because claim challenges unreasonable delay in waiver adjudication, not final visa denial | Consular decisions are presumptively nonreviewable; visa refusal bars jurisdiction | Court: nonreviewability doesn't bar review because no final waiver decision; case remains in administrative processing |
| Mootness | Relief ordering waiver decision would affect rights; not moot | Visa denial moots case | Court: not moot because waiver decision remains pending and relief could redress injury |
| APA unreasonable-delay (and CARRP claim) | Delay (~25 months) in waiver adjudication is unreasonable; CARRP causes disparate delay and lacked notice-and-comment | CARRP is a USCIS policy not applicable to State Dept. I-130/consular waiver; delay is reasonable given national-security review and volume of cases | Court: dismisses CARRP claim (plaintiffs conceded it didn’t apply); holds plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege unreasonable delay under TRAC factors |
| Mandamus (to compel decision) | Mandamus warranted to compel completion of administrative processing within 60 days | Mandamus inappropriate because it would reorder agency priorities and jump the queue | Court: denies mandamus for same reasons as the APA claim; courts should not place plaintiff ahead of other applicants |
| Fifth Amendment due process | Sara has liberty interest in family relationship and was deprived by prolonged delay | No protected liberty interest in companionship of an adult child; no due-process violation | Court: dismisses constitutional claim—no cognizable liberty interest in parent’s relationship with adult child |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (upheld Presidential Proclamation 9645 and emphasized waiver availability)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (doctrine of consular nonreviewability)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC six-factor test for unreasonable agency delay)
- In re Barr Labs., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts should not reorder agency priorities by letting one plaintiff "jump the queue")
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements; plaintiff bears burden)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (reasonableness of delay depends on complexity, significance, and agency resources)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in care and custody of minor children)
- Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no constitutionally protected liberty interest in companionship of an independent adult child)
- Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 (2015) (due-process discussion in the visa-denial context; citation of statutory basis may satisfy process in some circumstances)
- Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (mandamus relief should not let plaintiffs bypass others similarly situated)
- In re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standard for unreasonable delay review under APA and Mandamus Act)