TATE v. POMPEO, 513 F.Supp.3d 132

Background

Plaintiffs are 18 O-1/O-3 visa applicants (all with approved I-129 petitions) who were delayed or refused visas after the State Department, citing COVID-19 Presidential Proclamations under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), limited issuance in certain countries.
The Presidential Proclamations suspended "entry" to the U.S. for aliens present in designated countries within 14 days of attempted entry and tasked the Secretary of State with implementing the proclamations for visas.
The State Department suspended routine visa services during the pandemic, resumed limited operations, and instructed posts to restrict visa processing in proclamation-affected countries—refusing to issue O visas absent a national-interest exception.
Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking a preliminary injunction that (a) the State Department unlawfully relied on the proclamations to suspend O-visa issuance and (b) the Department unreasonably delayed adjudication.
The court held that the State Department’s categorical suspension/refusal of O visas based solely on the proclamations (which address entry, not visa eligibility) violated the APA, but it rejected plaintiffs’ claim for relief under the unreasonable-delay doctrine; it enjoined the Department from relying on the proclamations to suspend or refuse plaintiffs’ visa adjudications and ordered monthly status reports.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1182(f) authorizes the State Dept to refuse/ suspend O-visa issuance based on proclamations that restrict "entry"	§1182(f) restricts entry only; it does not make applicants ineligible for visas; consular officers retain visa-granting authority	Proclamations implementing §1182(f) render covered aliens ineligible to receive visas (citing §1201(g)); consular officers must refuse	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; §1182(f) governs entry, not visa eligibility; categorical suspension/refusal unlawful
Whether consular nonreviewability bars review	Plaintiffs challenge agency-wide policy, not individual consular discretion, so review is available	Consular nonreviewability precludes judicial review of visa refusals	Court: Doctrine does not bar review of an agency policy implementing the proclamations
Whether agency action implementing Presidential proclamations is unreviewable as presidential action	Agency implementation is reviewable under APA; not purely ministerial presidential action	Implementation of a proclamation is committed to the President and thus outside APA review	Court: Rejected defendant’s broad nonreviewability claim; agency implementation is reviewable here
Whether delay in adjudicating visas is unlawfully unreasonably delayed under APA §706(1) / TRAC factors	Delay and deprioritization of O applicants lack a rule of reason and prejudice plaintiffs’ careers/families	COVID-19 pandemic, global staffing limits, and massive backlog justify prioritization; reordering queue would harm competing priorities	Court: Denied relief on delay claim—agency backlog and prioritization during pandemic outweigh plaintiffs’ request to immediately expedite adjudication

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success and balancing harms)
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (likelihood-of-success element for injunctive relief)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (extraordinary nature of preliminary injunction burden)
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (preliminary injunction preserves status quo pending trial)
Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (TRAC factors for unreasonable-delay review)
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (consular officer authority and visa issuance principles)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency decisions committed to discretion; nonreviewability where no meaningful standard)
Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (district-court supervision and periodic reporting as remedial mechanism)