Hamed Almaqrami v. Michael Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774

Background

Plaintiffs won FY2017 diversity visa lottery but were denied visas after consular officers followed a State Department Guidance Memo implementing President Trump’s EO-2 travel restrictions for nationals of certain countries (Iran, Yemen).
The Guidance Memo instructed consular officers to assess eligibility under the INA first, then deny visas if EO-2 barred entry and no exemption/waiver or bona fide U.S. relationship applied.
Plaintiffs sued in D.D.C. seeking (among other relief) an injunction against the Guidance Memo and an order directing the State Department to process and issue their diversity visas.
On September 29, 2017 (one day before FY2017 ended) the district court ordered the State Department to report unused FY2017 visa numbers and to “hold” them to process plaintiffs’ applications if the Supreme Court later found EO-2 unlawful.
FY2017 ended with many unused visa numbers returned to the State Department; the government moved to dismiss as moot. The district court dismissed the case as moot; plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is moot because FY2017 ended and the government can no longer issue FY2017 diversity visas	The district court can grant equitable relief (enjoin the Guidance Memo, order processing, and require use of unused FY2017 visa numbers held under the Sept. 29 Order); thus there remains a live, effectual remedy	Once the fiscal year ended the court lacks power to order issuance of FY2017 visas; any claim for those visas is moot	Not moot: plaintiffs’ claim that equitable relief is legally available is not so implausible as to defeat jurisdiction; remand for merits consideration
Whether the district court’s Sept. 29 Order limited later relief to the circumstance where the Supreme Court found EO-2 unlawful	Sept. 29 Order preserved the status quo and left open further relief to rectify erroneous denials; it can be read more broadly than the district court assumed	The Order only required holding visas pending a Supreme Court finding of EO-2 unlawfulness, so no relief is available absent that finding	The appellate court held the Order need not be read so narrowly; multiple plausible readings preserve jurisdiction
Whether challenges to the Guidance Memo are moot because EO-2 expired	Even if EO-2 expired, the Guidance Memo may still be in effect; plaintiffs have a concrete interest in obtaining relief against that policy and in having their applications processed under the INA	Because EO-2 expired, challenges to implementing guidance tied to EO-2 are moot	The court concluded the district court was premature to find those challenges moot on the record; jurisdiction is preserved
Whether there is any chance relief would be effective given ongoing travel restrictions/proclamation	Plaintiffs could still obtain exemptions/waivers, the President could remove country restrictions, or a court could order processing that leads to eventual entry	The Proclamation and end of FY2017 make relief purely speculative and therefore ineffective	The court found there is at least some chance relief could secure plaintiffs’ immigration; speculation does not defeat mootness under controlling precedent

Key Cases Cited

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (distinguishes mootness from merits where claim that relief is legally available preserves jurisdiction)
Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) (a plaintiff retains interest if there is any chance relief will be effective)
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (addressed justiciability and substantive challenges to Presidential entry restrictions)
Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (per curiam) ( Supreme Court stay/limitations on EO-2 enforcement for certain relationships)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal jurisdiction requires a case or controversy)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards for plausible claims)