Moghaddam v. Pompeo, 424 F.Supp.3d 104

Plaintiffs Vala Moghaddam (U.S. citizen) and his wife Nahid Sharei (Iranian national) initiated immigration processing: I-130 filed Dec. 21, 2016 (approved July 7, 2017) and DS-260 filed Aug. 9, 2017; consular interview occurred Jan. 25, 2018.
Sharei received a 212(f) refusal under Presidential Proclamation 9645 but was referred for case-by-case waiver consideration and completed supplemental security questions (DS-5535).
Sharei remained in “administrative processing” for an extended period (alleging ~19–29 months without a waiver-eligibility determination), causing claimed emotional and monetary harms from separation.
Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and sought mandamus and declaratory/injunctive relief to compel adjudication of waiver eligibility (requested decision within 15 days).
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court denied the motion, holding APA jurisdiction existed and that plaintiffs sufficiently pled claims; it did not reach mandamus merits because APA provided an adequate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness	Challenge is to ongoing failure to adjudicate waiver eligibility; visa denial is not the relief sought	Case is moot because the visa was already denied	Not moot: waiver eligibility remains pending and is the live controversy
Consular nonreviewability	Plaintiffs challenge agency inaction/delay (not a consular discretionary denial) so review is permitted	Visa decisions are exclusively consular and nonreviewable	Doctrine inapplicable: it bars review of discretionary denials but not suits challenging nonaction/delay
Committed-to-agency-discretion (APA §701(a)(2))	Agencies must act within a reasonable time; implementing guidance creates a mandatory duty to consider waivers	Waiver program and decisions are committed to executive discretion and thus unreviewable	Exception narrow; APA reasonableness standard applies and agency guidance shows a duty to consider/decide waivers, so claim is reviewable
Mandamus availability	Plaintiffs seek a writ to compel adjudication if APA remedy inadequate	Defendants argue no clear nondiscretionary duty and alternative remedies exist	Court did not decide mandamus because APA jurisdiction existed and provides an adequate remedy

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (discusses Proclamation 9645 and waiver framework relied on in assessing reviewability)
Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) (explains consular nonreviewability principle)
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (describes consular officers’ exclusive visa authority)
Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (recognizes political branches’ broad exclusion authority)
Telecommunications Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for unreasonable-delay APA claims)
In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (mandamus/APA delay standards and emphasis on reasonableness)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (limits on judicial review when no law to apply)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (statutory commitment-to-discretion doctrine)
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (agency must follow its own binding rules and guidance)
Padula v. Webster, 822 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (agency pronouncements can become binding norms)