Zaman v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Civil Action No. 2019-3592
| D.D.C. | Nov 16, 2021Background
- Zaman filed I-130 (IR-5) immigrant-petition applications for his mother and father in November 2016; USCIS completed initial processing in July 2017 and consular interviews occurred in April 2018, but no final visas were issued.
- The consular office issued INA §221(g) refusals (administrative processing status); DOS suspended routine visa services in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic, creating a backlog.
- Zaman sued DHS, USCIS, DOS, the U.S. Consulate in Dhaka, and agency officials seeking mandamus and APA relief to compel adjudication (or an order requiring defendants to finish processing within 60 days), declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; they argued consular officers have exclusive adjudicatory authority and cited COVID-related suspensions and backlog.
- The Court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear a claim challenging agency inaction but dismissed the complaint on the merits: the delay was not so egregious as to warrant mandamus or APA relief under TRAC, and the Fifth Amendment due-process claim failed because Zaman has no cognizable liberty interest in the companionship of adult parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction to hear challenge to delay | Zaman argued the court can review agency inaction and compel completion under the APA and Mandamus Act | Defs argued only consular officers can adjudicate visas and other defendants cannot grant requested relief | Court: jurisdiction exists to review alleged unlawful delay (challenge to inaction), so case not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Unreasonable delay under APA / mandamus | Zaman contended ~3 years of processing delay is unreasonable and mandamus/APA relief is appropriate | Defs claimed delays are justified by lack of statutory timetable, consular discretion, COVID-related suspensions, and backlog; relief would let him jump the queue | Court: applying TRAC factors, delay not egregious enough—first/second and fourth factors favor defendants (no statutory deadline; COVID/backlog; queueing concerns); overall no relief granted |
| Whether mandamus standard met | Zaman argued a clear nondiscretionary duty exists to conclude the matter within a reasonable time | Defs argued no clear, ministerial duty and wide agency discretion over visa timing | Held: mandamus unjustified; petitioner did not show a clear, indisputable right or a ministerial duty |
| Fifth Amendment due process claim | Zaman claimed delay deprived him of familial association (loss of consortium) | Defs argued no protected liberty or property interest in adult-child companionship tied to immigration adjudication | Court: due-process claim dismissed—no cognizable liberty interest in companionship of independent adult parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (consular officers have exclusive authority to review visa applications)
- Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for evaluating unreasonable agency delay)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (courts may compel agency action unlawfully withheld; limits on reviewability)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (courts should not let plaintiffs "jump the queue" when ordering expedited agency action)
- In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standards for unreasonable-delay mandamus/APA claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no constitutional liberty interest in companionship of an independent adult child)