Nikjooy v. Blinken
Civil Action No. 2024-1989
| D.D.C. | Sep 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Afsaneh Nikjooy, an Iranian citizen and medical professor, applied for a B‑1/B‑2 visa in Dec. 2022 and interviewed at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai in Mar. 2023.
- After the interview her application was refused under INA § 221(g) and placed in "administrative processing;" she received communications that the case remained refused pending processing and later that materials were forwarded for further review.
- Nikjooy alleges the delay has caused financial, professional, and emotional harm by preventing her from attending U.S. conferences and speaking engagements.
- She sued the Secretary of State (in his official capacity) seeking to compel final adjudication of her visa application, asserting claims under the APA and the Mandamus Act for unreasonable delay.
- The Secretary moved to dismiss principally on (1) consular nonreviewability and (2) absence of a nondiscretionary duty to act; the court granted dismissal of Count I (challenge to final agency action) but allowed Counts II and III (unreasonable delay / mandamus) to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consular nonreviewability bars this suit | Nikjooy argues the refusal/administrative processing is not a final decision and she challenges only delay in adjudication | Secretary contends a §221(g) refusal with administrative processing is a final, nonreviewable consular decision | Court held doctrine does not bar claims challenging delay here because complaint plausibly alleges no final decision; nonreviewability applies only to final decisions |
| Whether a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate exists under statutes/regulations | Nikjooy cites APA §555(b), INA/State Dept. regulations, and case law to show a duty to adjudicate within a reasonable time | Secretary relies on Karimova and argues no clear duty to act further once a §221(g) refusal places the case in administrative processing | Court held plaintiff sufficiently alleged a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate and may proceed on unreasonable‑delay claims (Counts II & III) |
| Whether Count I (challenge under APA §706(2) to final agency action) is viable | Plaintiff did not seek to overturn a final denial but sought final adjudication | Defendant argued lack of final agency action defeats §706(2) claim | Court dismissed Count I for lack of final agency action |
| Whether unpublished D.C. Cir. decision (Karimova) controls | Plaintiff relied on allegations and precedent that §221(g) administrative processing can be nonfinal | Secretary argued Karimova foreclosed review of post‑refusal administrative processing | Court determined Karimova (unpublished) is not binding and declined to follow it; considered but did not find it persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (jurisdiction presumption and limited federal court jurisdiction)
- Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (consular nonreviewability doctrine discussion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards)
- Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (TRAC) (reasonable‑time analysis for agency action)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (APA §555(b) duty to act within a reasonable time)
- Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183 (mandamus threshold: clear duty to act)
- Al‑Gharawy v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 617 F. Supp. 3d 1 (district court precedent that consular nonreviewability does not bar claims about delay)