502 F.Supp.3d 302
D.D.C.2020Background:
- 153 U.S. citizens and their foreign-born fiancés(e)s (all had approved USCIS I-129F petitions) seek K-1 visas to marry in the U.S.; cases sit at various stages in State Department processing.
- President issued COVID-19-related Proclamations under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) suspending "entry" for aliens recently present in 31 countries; the State Department interpreted those Proclamations to suspend visa adjudications for nationals in those countries.
- Separately, global COVID-19 operational constraints caused widespread consular suspensions and delays in visa processing worldwide; State prioritized some mission-critical and family categories but processing remained uneven.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking (a) to enjoin State from relying on § 1182(f)/the Proclamations to refuse or suspend K-1 visa adjudications (for "Proclamation Plaintiffs") and (b) to compel expedited adjudication or reissuance for delayed K-1 cases (for "non‑Proclamation Plaintiffs").
- The Court granted relief in part: it held State’s practice of suspending K-1 adjudications based on § 1182(f) was unlawful and enjoined that practice for Proclamation Plaintiffs; it denied relief on the claim that pandemic delays in non‑Proclamation countries amount to unreasonable agency delay.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State lawfully suspended visa adjudications by relying on § 1182(f) (Proclamation Plaintiffs) | § 1182(f) suspends "entry," not visa issuance; State lacks authority to stop visa adjudications under that provision | § 1182(f) renders covered aliens inadmissible and § 1182(a)/§ 1201(g) make inadmissibility a basis to deny visas, so State may suspend visa issuance | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; § 1182(f) does not authorize broad suspension of visa adjudications; injunction granted as to Proclamation Plaintiffs |
| Whether agency actions implementing the Proclamations are reviewable under the APA | Agency implementation decisions are reviewable; the Secretary exercised non‑ministerial discretion so courts can review | Implementation of a Presidential Proclamation is committed to the President and thus not reviewable under APA | Court: Reviewable here because the Proclamations left procedural discretion to State and the Department’s suspension was not merely ministerial |
| Whether State’s pandemic-related delays in processing K-1 visas in non‑Proclamation countries are unreasonable under the APA (unlawful withholding) | Delays are arbitrary and capricious/unreasonably withheld given family‑unity interests and evidence that other visas are being processed | Delays stem from legitimate COVID‑related constraints, resource allocation, and competing priorities; State has been acting in good faith | Court: Denied relief on delay claim after TRAC analysis — delays not yet so egregious to compel action; public‑interest and agency‑priority considerations weigh against reordering consular priorities |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary‑injunction standard requiring likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Hawaii v. Trump, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (distinguishing visa issuance from entry/admission under the INA)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (six‑factor test for unreasonable agency delay)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (defining "final agency action" for APA reviewability)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (doctrine of consular non‑reviewability explained)
- Leiva‑Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (family separation can constitute irreparable harm)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (application of TRAC balancing in APA delay claims)