Motevali v. Blinken
Civil Action No. 2024-1029
D.D.C.Mar 21, 2025Background
- This case concerns a U.S. citizen (Saeid Motevali) petitioning for his Iranian father's (Alireza Motevaly Alamouti) immigration visa.
- The I-130 petition was filed in 2019 and approved in 2021; the visa application was processed in Sri Lanka, with an interview in September 2023.
- After the interview, further background information (Form DS-5535) was requested and provided, but the application remains in "administrative processing" with no final decision.
- Plaintiffs allege emotional and financial harm due to the extended delay, and seek a court order compelling agency action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting lack of standing, consular non-reviewability, absence of a clear nondiscretionary duty, and failure to state a claim for unreasonable delay.
- The Court focused on whether the delay was unreasonable under federal law and dismissed the complaint, finding it was not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Suffered concrete emotional and financial harm due to delay | No legally cognizable injury; delay doesn’t confer standing | Plaintiffs have standing; injuries are sufficient |
| Proper Defendants & Redressability | Secretary of State and SAC Director can order prompt decision | Neither defendant can compel or issue visa decisions | Defendants can remedy delay; are proper parties |
| Consular Non-Reviewability | No final "decision"; still in administrative processing | Refusal under §221(g) is a final, unreviewable decision | Not a final decision; judicial review is proper |
| Unreasonable Delay | Nearly 5 years since petition; delay is egregious, harms family | Delay since interview (17 months) is reasonable per caselaw | Delay not unreasonable; does not state claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (describes the INA’s goal of family reunification)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for stating a claim)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (constitutional requirements for standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) (concrete injury for standing)
- Baan Rao Thai Rest. v. Pompeo, 985 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (scope of consular non-reviewability)
- Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C. (TRAC), 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (six-factor test for unreasonable agency delay)