557 F.Supp.3d 160
D.D.C.2021Background
- Plaintiff Nahid Ghulam Dastagir (U.S. citizen) filed Form I-130 for her husband in January 2016; USCIS approved the petition in 2016.
- The husband was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in March 2018 and the consular officer placed the immigrant visa case in “administrative processing.”
- The case remained pending; the husband was re-interviewed later, but Moscow operations were further disrupted by COVID-19 and a Russian hiring ban limiting routine immigrant visa processing to emergencies and age-out cases.
- Dastagir sued under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act seeking an order compelling adjudication and alleged (on information and belief) that the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) caused intentional delay.
- The Government moved to dismiss; the Court evaluated the unreasonable-delay claim using the six TRAC factors and denied relief, granting the Government’s motion and denying plaintiff’s partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable delay (APA / Mandamus) in adjudicating immigrant visa | Delay since interview (≈29 months pending; petition filed 2016) is unreasonable and warrants court-ordered adjudication | No statutory deadline; delays explained by embassy backlog, COVID-19, and local restrictions; judicial reordering would unfairly jump the queue | Court: No unreasonable delay under TRAC factors; dismissal for failure to state claim |
| 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) ("sense of Congress" 180-day goal) | §1571(b) shows Congress expects timely processing and supports plaintiff’s claim | §1571(b) is precatory, nonbinding and does not create an enforceable deadline | Court: §1571(b) is nonbinding and would not change the TRAC analysis |
| CARRP-based claim of intentional targeting causing delay | Case is being intentionally delayed pursuant to CARRP | Plaintiff alleges only "on information and belief" without factual support; claim depends on unreasonable-delay showing | Court: CARRP claim fails—unreasonable-delay claim fails and allegations lack factual support |
| Consular nonreviewability | Plaintiff: doctrine does not bar review of inaction (as opposed to discretionary visa denials) | Government invoked consular nonreviewability as defense | Court: Did not decide applicability; unnecessary because dismissal based on unreasonable-delay analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; courts need not credit legal conclusions)
- Telecommunications Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (sets six-factor TRAC test for unreasonable delay)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (APA requires agency action within reasonable time; TRAC application guidance)
- In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (factor one is important: identifiable rationale governs agency timing)
- In re American Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (no per se rule on how long is too long; TRAC application)
- In re Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts should not reorder agency priorities or budget allocations)
- L. Xia v. Tillerson, 865 F.3d 643 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (standard for treating factual allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (limits material courts may consider on motion to dismiss)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (deference to government on immigration matters implicating foreign relations)
- Kangarloo v. Pompeo, 480 F. Supp. 3d 134 (D.D.C. 2020) (recognizes identical standard for unreasonable delay under Mandamus and APA)