Pushkar v. Blinken
Civil Action No. 2021-2297
| D.D.C. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Liudmyla Pushkar was selected in the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery for FY2021; the statutory deadline to issue DV-2021 visas was September 30, 2021.
- Pushkar filed suit June 22, 2021 alleging unreasonable delay in adjudicating her DV application and moved for a temporary restraining order on September 13, 2021 seeking an interview and visa before September 30.
- The Court denied the TRO on September 23 and later sought supplemental briefing on whether the case remained justiciable after the fiscal‑year deadline passed.
- Defendants argued the case is moot because 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)(II) bars issuance of DV-2021 visas after September 30, so the alleged injury is no longer redressable.
- Pushkar relied on Almaqrami v. Pompeo, arguing that a different court’s pre‑deadline order in this jurisdiction (requiring the government to process DV-2021 applications) preserved jurisdiction for cases like hers.
- The Court concluded it had not granted any relief for Pushkar before the fiscal year ended and, applying precedent holding similar suits moot where no pre-deadline relief was granted, dismissed the case for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot because the statutory DV-2021 issuance deadline passed | Pushkar: another court’s pre‑deadline order in this jurisdiction is "applicable" and preserves jurisdiction under Almaqrami | Defs: Statute bars issuing DV-2021 visas after Sept. 30; injuries not redressable → mootness | Court: Case is moot; no jurisdiction because it granted no relief before fiscal‑year end |
| Whether Almaqrami compels a different result here | Pushkar: Almaqrami shows pre-deadline equitable relief (even in a different case) can keep a plaintiff’s suit alive | Defs: Almaqrami does not mean every related post-deadline suit survives—only where court granted pre-deadline relief to preserve equitable remedies | Court: Almaqrami does not save Pushkar; because this court granted no pre‑deadline relief specific to her, her case is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (pre‑deadline equitable orders can preserve a court's ability to compel visa issuance after fiscal year end in some circumstances)
- Mwasaru v. Napolitano, 619 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2010) (statute barring post‑deadline visa issuance generally renders claims moot when no relief issued before fiscal year end)
- Mohamed v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2006) (same principle on mootness for diversity‑visa claims not acted on before deadline)
- Coraggioso v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 730 (3d Cir. 2004) (same mootness rule applied to diversity‑visa litigation)
- Carrillo‑Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (same mootness principle for diversity‑visa applicants)