Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry
168 F. Supp. 3d 268
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are Iraqi and Afghan citizens who assisted US efforts and seek Iraqi/Afghan SIVs under RCIA and AAPA.
- The RCIA/AAPA mandate nine-month processing goals for SIV steps and allow longer time only for high-risk/national-security cases.
- Plaintiffs proceed anonymously; the Amended Complaint seeks APA and Mandamus relief to compel final adjudication and protection/removal actions.
- Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing standing and consular nonreviewability, among other arguments.
- Court granted leave to file a Supplemental Declaration to correct misstatements about Ronaldo’s visa status and to supplement the record.
- Remainder of Counts 3–6 seeks to compel adjudication; Counts 1–2 seek protection/removal duties; Alpha/Bravo/Delta claims were mooted by visa grants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge adjudication delays | Plaintiffs (General) allege injury from lack of final SIV decisions | Government asserts final refusals and lack of standing due to consular nonreviewability | Standing exists for pending applications; some claims moot but others remain live |
| Whether consular nonreviewability bars review | Nonfinal administrative processing means not final refusals | Finality achieved via 1201(g) refusals; review barred | Nonreviewability does not apply where applications remain in administrative processing and not finally refused |
| Whether RCIA/AAPA establish non-discretionary duties to adjudicate within nine months | Statutes create non-discretionary duty to decide within nine months | Adjudication pace is discretionary due to national security exceptions | Adjudication within nine months is non-discretionary; judicial standards exist to measure compliance |
| Whether APA/Mandamus claims are viable for Counts 3–6 | Court should compel agency action to adjudicate within reasonable time | Claims lack judicially manageable standards and are committed to agency discretion | Counts 3–6 viable; Counts 1–2 dismissed due to separate analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (doctrine of consular nonreviewability explains visa decisions are nonreviewable)
- Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997) (consular nonreviewability does not apply unless a decision exists)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (S. Ct. 2004) (APA scope: courts compel non-discretionary agency action)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (rule of reason governs agency decision timing when statute provides timetable)
- Vietnamese Asylum Seekers v. State Dept., 104 F.3d 1360 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (discretion in consultations with agencies; nonreviewable unless standard exists)
- Am. Acad. of Religion v. Chertoff, 463 F. Supp. 2d 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (administrative action not subject to review where discretionary)
- Maramjaya v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 2008 WL 9398947 (D.D.C. 2008) (insufficient for mootness where processing ongoing)