TAVAKOLI JOORABI v. POMPEO, 464 F.Supp.3d 93

Plaintiffs Ali Tavakoli Joorabi, his two children, and their U.S. employer sued federal officials seeking a writ of mandamus and APA relief to compel adjudication of immigrant visa waiver requests under Presidential Proclamation 9645.
Mr. Tavakoli’s I-140 petition was approved and the family completed DS-260 and consular processing; their immigrant visa interviews (Ankara) resulted in denials under the Proclamation in January 2019 and referral to a discretionary waiver process.
Plaintiffs submitted supplemental waiver questionnaires in January 2019; the waiver requests have remained in “administrative processing” amid thousands of other pending waiver submissions.
Plaintiffs allege unreasonable delay and hardship to the family and the employer, and seek mandamus to compel action; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Court held the underlying visa denials are barred from review by consular nonreviewability and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims about the waiver process because the Proclamation commits waiver adjudication to executive discretion, provides no judicially manageable standard, and disclaimed any private rights; the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial review of underlying consular visa denials	Visa process remains open because waivers are pending, so Court may review the whole application	Visa denials are consular acts not subject to judicial review	Denials are nonreviewable; challenge to underlying visas is barred/moot
Reviewability of delay in waiver adjudication under the APA	Waiver adjudication is unreasonably delayed; APA provides review and mandamus relief	Waiver process is committed to executive discretion and Proclamation forecloses judicial rights	Consular nonreviewability not triggered for pending waivers, but APA review is unavailable because Proclamation commits decision to agency discretion and disclaims rights
Applicability of TRAC factors to assess unreasonable delay	TRAC provides a workable standard to assess delay	Proclamation and national-security considerations preclude a judicially manageable standard	TRAC is inapplicable here; even if applied plaintiffs fail to show unreasonable delay
Availability of mandamus to compel adjudication	Mandamus warranted to compel action on pending waivers	No clear nondiscretionary duty exists; mandamus inappropriate	Mandamus denied—no clear, non‑discretionary statutory duty to compel waiver adjudication

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir.) (doctrine of consular nonreviewability)
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (Supreme Court upholding Presidential authority under §1182(f))
Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir.) (TRAC factors for unreasonable-delay review)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency action committed to agency discretion exception to APA review)
Block v. Community Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (limits on APA review where statute or scheme precludes it)
In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir.) (mandamus requires clear nondiscretionary duty)
Nine Iraqi Allies v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C.) (consular nonreviewability not triggered until a final consular decision)