Kangarloo v. Pompeo, 480 F.Supp.3d 134

Tara Kangarloo (U.S. citizen) filed an I-130 for her husband, Ehsan Imanifouladi (Iranian), who interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara on June 22, 2016 and was initially refused under INA §221(g) pending administrative processing.
Presidential Proclamation 9645 (Sept. 24, 2017) imposed entry restrictions on Iranian nationals but allowed discretionary waivers; a nationwide injunction briefly blocked the Proclamation, then the Supreme Court stayed that injunction in December 2017.
After the Supreme Court stay, the Embassy changed Imanifouladi’s refusal basis to INA §212(f), cancelled a follow-up interview, and informed him of the Presidential restriction.
Kangarloo applied for a Proclamation waiver on August 14, 2018 (Imanifouladi completed paperwork Oct. 26, 2018); no decision had issued after nearly two years.
Plaintiffs sued (Feb. 7, 2020) seeking a writ of mandamus or APA relief to compel adjudication; the government moved to dismiss, arguing consular nonreviewability, mootness, waiver-process unreviewability, and no unreasonable delay.
The court held it has jurisdiction, ruled consular nonreviewability does not bar judicial review of inaction on waiver requests, found the case not moot, but dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to plausibly show unreasonable delay under the APA or entitlement to mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consular nonreviewability	Challenge is to delay in adjudicating the Proclamation waiver, not the visa refusal	Consular refusal was final and unreviewable	Doctrine does not bar review of agency inaction on waiver applications where no final waiver decision issued
Mootness	Relief sought is adjudication of the separate waiver request, so case not moot	Visa was already refused, so no live controversy	Not moot because compelling adjudication of the waiver can afford effectual relief
APA reviewability (committed to agency discretion)	Waiver-processing delay is reviewable under the APA as agency action under §706(1)	Waiver authority derives solely from the Proclamation and is committed to executive/agency discretion (§701(a)(2)); Proclamation disclaims private rights	Court assumes arguendo reviewable but declines to definitively resolve; notes strong government argument that waiver decisions may be unreviewable
Unreasonable delay / Mandamus (TRAC factors)	Nearly two years’ delay is unreasonable and prejudices Plaintiffs’ family/health interests	Large backlog (~13,000 applicants) and national security vetting justify delay; court should not reorder agency priorities	Applying TRAC, delay not shown unreasonable; APA claim fails and mandamus (same standard) is unavailable

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (upheld Presidential Proclamation restricting entry and noted waiver availability)
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (describing consular nonreviewability doctrine)
Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (articulating multi-factor test for unreasonable delay)
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (mandamus and APA delay standards are coextensive)
In re Barr Laboratories, Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (court should not reorder agency priorities by advancing one applicant at expense of others)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards: plausible claim required)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (limits on judicial review of Presidential actions)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (federal courts have only statutorily and constitutionally authorized jurisdiction)