Federal Judges Reject State Department's Motions to Dismiss in Mandamus Lawsuits

Orod Haghighiara et al v. Antony J. Blinken, No.  2:24-cv-10319-CBM-AGR  

However, the TRAC test is fact-intensive, and the Court declines to resolve whether the TRAC test has been satisfied at the pleading stage.  See Metrexeli v. Jaddou, 2025 WL 819047, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025); Karapetyan v. Mayorkas, 2025 WL 665651, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2025); Naji v. Mayorkas, 2023 WL 7097363, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2023); Tailawal v. Mayorkas, 2022 WL 4493725, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022); Dong v. Cuccinelli, 2021 WL 1214512, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2021).4  Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the basis there was no unreasonable delay without prejudice to Defendants raising this issue at a later stage after discovery.

Foudazi v. Blinken, No. CIV-24-1033-R, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77229, at *10 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2025)

First, the INA 221(g) refusal notice suggests that the refusal is not final:

Your visa application is temporarily refused under section 221(g) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act for the reasons stated below. However this refusal may be overcome once the missing documentation and/or administrative processing have been met.

Sattar Mobayen et al v.   Antony J. Blinken et al, No. 2:24-cv-07456-KS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025)

This Court finds that Plaintiffs’ alternate argument wins the day and “joins multiple other courts who have concluded that ‘because the TRAC factor analysis is necessarily fact-intensive, it is more appropriately applied after some discovery than at the pleading stage.’” Soroush, 2025 WL 305837 at *8 (quoting Tailawal v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Sec’y of Homeland Sec., No. CV-22-01515-SPG-RAO, 2022 WL 4493725, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022)); see also A.C.C.S. v. Nelson, No. CV 18-10759-DMG (MRWx), 2019 WL 7841860, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019) (finding TRAC factors are a “fact intensive inquiry” better suited for decision after discovery).

Rajnikant Patel v. Sanders, No. 24 C 8386, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66804, at *20-21 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2025) 

 "The duration of administrative processing will vary based on the individual circumstances of each case." Doc. 1 at 8. This alleged fact, in addition to Ms. Patel's additional explanations in her briefing that Defendants do not review visa applications in the order they receive them after Defendants refer the visa applications for [*21]  administrative processing, plausibly alleges that Defendants do not apply a rule of reason to administrative processing. See Da Costa v. Immigr. Inv. Program Off., 80 F.4th 330, 341, 463 U.S. App. D.C. 79 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (reviewing the plausibility of plaintiffs' argument that USCIS was not using its stated first-in, first-out rule). Altogether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the first factor weighs in favor of Ms. Patel.

Aramnahad et al v. Blinken et al, No. 1:24-cv-01817-MAU (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2025)

In the District Court for the District of Columbia, US Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya denied the government’s motion to dismiss where an EB-3 visa category plaintiff had been stuck in post-interview administrative processing for two years.

For multiple reasons well-articulated over several pages, Judge Upadhyaya did not find the unpublished Karimova case to be binding or particularly relevant to this case.

Karbasian v. U.S. Department of State, No. 24-cv-1484-RJD (United States District Court, Southern District if Illinois, March 14, 2025)

• The court refused to consider the DOS declaration, finding that doing so would improperly convert the motion into one for summary judgment.
• Section 1202(d) imposes a mandatory duty to adjudicate.
• Additionally, the court relied on multiple FAM provisions requiring consular officers to review new evidence, reopen cases, and continue adjudication after a 221(g) refusal:

“The FAM section governing nonimmigrant visas, however, does provide for a mechanism to reactivate an application previously refused under INA § 221(g) upon production of the requested information by the alien or when the necessary clearance is received. 9 FAM 403.10-4(b). In that case, the consular officer ‘should note the new information or results of the clearance process and issue or refuse the visa’ without requesting the payment of an additional filing fee or the submission of a new application.” (Slip Op. at 16)

• Finally, the TRAC factor analysis was deemed premature at the MTD stage, primarily due to disputed facts between the Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the number of pending visa applications.

Rezaii v. Kennedy, No. 1:24-cv-10838-JEK, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44346, at *15 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2025)

" The Court concludes, therefore, that the TRAC factors are most properly addressed based on a factual record at the summary judgment stage. See Raouf v. U.S. Dep't of State, 702 F. Supp. 3d 19, 32 (D.N.H. 2023) ("Because an analysis of the TRAC factors typically requires the court to wade through the particular facts and circumstances of an agency's delay, courts generally conclude that undertaking such a fact-bound analysis at the motion to dismiss stage is premature." (quotation marks omitted)). Several Courts of Appeals have likewise observed that "'[a] claim of unreasonable delay is necessarily fact dependent and thus sits uncomfortably at the motion to dismiss stage and should not typically be resolved at that stage.'" Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Dep't ofHomeland Sec., 25 F.4th 430, 451 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357, 375 (4th Cir. 2021)); accord Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("Resolution of a claim of unreasonable delay is ordinarily a complicated and nuanced task requiring consideration of the particular facts and circumstances before the court."); but see Da Costa v. Immigr. Inv. Program Off., 80 F.4th 330, 346 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (affirming dismissal of unreasonable delay claims based on application of the TRAC factors)."

Haddock v. O'Neill, No. 2:24-cv-08587-SPG-SK, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40877, at *11-12 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025)

"... several courts in this Circuit have deemed the agency's purported refusal of a visa application, when simultaneously held in abeyance for "administrative processing," to not be a "final decision." Tamjidi, 2024 WL 4328813, at *3 ("[T]he government cannot [*12]  sidestep its duties by simply labeling an ongoing case a refusal.") (collecting cases); Ferdowski v. Blinken, 2024 WL 685912, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024); Shahijani v. Laitinen, 2023 WL 6889774, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2023) ("Courts in this district have repeatedly held that a refusal for 'administrative processing' is not a final decision.") (collecting cases); Billoo v. Baran, 2022 WL 1841611, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022); Gonzalez v. Baran, 2022 WL 1843148, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022). Defendants "acknowledge" this line of cases, but "disagree with the[ir] rationale," since there is no "congressionally mandated timetable for adjudicating" visa applications. (Motion at 22 n.10 (quoting Shahijani, 2023 WL 6889774, at *3)). While the Court agrees the relevant portions of the INA and its regulations thereunder contain no numerical prescription as to the number of days Defendants have to issue a decision on a given nonimmigrant visa application, this does not negate the APA's requirement that agencies must "proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." 5 U.S.C. § 555(b)." 

Felix v United States State Department, No. 2:24-CV-812 JCM (DJA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31996 (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2025)

For a case where applicant interviewed in August 2023, the court found “at this juncture, the court finds that plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendants' delay is unreasonable.”
Felix v United States State Department, No. 2:24-CV-812 JCM (DJA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31996, at *9 (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2025).

Maliki v. Rubio', No. 5:24-CV-38-BO-KS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27505 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2025)

In this case, Afghan family plaintiffs brought unreasonable delay claims under the Administrative Procedures Act for delay of Form I-730 adjudications.  Government defendants went for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and failed: 

“Plaintiff has, however, stated a plausible claim under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA prohibits government action which is "unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). "A claim of unreasonable delay is necessarily fact dependent and thus sits uncomfortably at the motion to dismiss stage and should not typically be resolved at that stage." [*8]  Gonzalez, 985 F.3d at 375 (citing TRAC v. FCC,750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). The Court thus declines to dismiss the AP A claim at this stage, as it finds that plaintiff has plausibly alleged unreasonable delay .” Maliki v. Rubio', No. 5:24-CV-38-BO-KS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27505, at *8 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2025)

Network Optix Inc., et al. v. Marco Rubio, Case no. 2:24-cv-06505-SK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025)

In this case, an H1B applicant stuck in AP since February 2024 survived the State Department defendants’ motion to dismiss, after US Magistrate Judge Steve Kim dismantled the government’s arguments on duty, consular nonreviewability, and 221(g) is a final decision. Judge Kim also ordered that State Department defendants’ answer to the complaint be due in 14 days, and that an expedited scheduling conference hearing be scheduled for March 17.

Shayesteh Soroush et al. v. Antony J. Blinken et al., Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-06490-CAS-JC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025)

"...the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 706(1) claim and grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 706(2) claim without prejudice."

Azadi v Gaudiosi, Civil Action No. 24-cv-00825-CNS (District Court for the District of Colorado) (January 6, 2025)

“The Court, however, is persuaded by the first line of cases. While it is true that the consular officer issued a denial, that is not the end of the process. An application placed in administrative processing can still be granted, after more information is provided. A denial placing an application into administrative processing is different from other agency decisions because there is more than a ‘mere possibility that an agency might reconsider.’” Azadani v. Gaudiosi, Civil Action No. 24-cv-00825-CNS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2086, at *8 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2025)(quoting Sackett v. E.P.A., 566 U.S. 120, 127 (2012)).

Momeni v. Blinken, Civil Action No.  2:24-cv-04879-ODW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2024)

In this case, Red Eagle Law, L.C. represented a Iranian F-4 category family suffering an AP delay (related to a July 2023 interview). US District Court Judge Otis D. Wright, II issued an order denying the State Department’s motion to dismiss. Notably, Judge Wright found the consular officer’s refusal of the visa applicant’s application under INA 221(g) “was a placeholder and temporary refusal for ‘further administrative processing’; it was not a final adjudication.” 

Hassan v. Dillard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219068 (District Court of Minnesota) (December 4, 2024)

Another order from United States District Judge Katherine denying the government’s motion to dismiss. 

Awal v United States Department of State, No. 24-cv-382 (KMM/ECW) (District Court of Minnesota) (December 4, 2024)

United States District Judge Katherine Menendez recently issued an order denying the government’s motion to dismiss, with these observations:

“[I]nterpreting the refusal-for-administrative-processing approach to be the conclusion of the matter before the agency has the potential to shield from judicial review unreasonable delays that are prohibited by the APA. If the approach in cases like this constitutes a final agency action, the State Department could refuse every visa application for arbitrary reasons, place them into the administrative processing queue, and then take far more time than is reasonable to adjudicate the petition. Nothing in the INA or the relevant implementing regulations suggests that Congress intended such a result.” 

“It appears that the Karmiova court reached that conclusion based primarily on the provisions of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual…However it is far from clear whether the Foreign Affairs Manual has any legally binding effect, and Karimova does not illustrate how the interpretation reflected in the Manual is consistent with the language of any Act of Congress. Cf. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024)(overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984) and emphasizing that courts are obligated to declare what the law is without deferring to agency’s interpretations of ambiguous laws.”

Farah Ahmed v. Blinken, Civil Action No. 24-153 (LLA), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215789, (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2024)

In the District Court for the District of Columbia, US District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan has allowed a 5-year B1/2 AP delay to survive motion to dismiss. “[A]fter weighing the TRAC factors, the court concludes that Ms. Ahmed has plausibly alleged that Defendants' delay in adjudicating her visa is unreasonable.” Farah Ahmed v. Blinken, Civil Action No. 24-153 (LLA), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215789, at *18 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2024)

Notably, “[t]his court has considered Karimova but declines to follow it.” Id. at 10 n.4.

Omar v Blinken, Case no. 3:24-cv-00060-WHR (November 15, 2024 SDOH) 

In a lawsuit we filed in the Southern District of Ohio for a US citizen and their spouse stuck in post-interview administrative processing, Judge Walter Rice overruled the State Department’s motion to dismiss. 

Judge Rice found “because the procedural posture of this case and the above referenced deficiencies in the factual record do not sustain Defendants' argument under the TRAC factors, their motion to dismiss is overruled.” Omar v Blinken, Case no. 3:24-cv-00060-WHR *26 (November 15, 2024 SDOH).

Sheikhalizadehjahed v. Gaudiosi, No. 2:24-cv-1136 SCR, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188315 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2024)

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEAN C. RIORDAN has issued an order denying the State Department’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit where the visa applicants where the IR5 visa applicant was interviewed in February 2023. From the order:

“Absent binding precedent, the Court is persuaded that § 1202(b) imposes a non-discretionary duty to review and adjudicate visa applications. The initial refusal of Plaintiff's father's visa application while placing it in "administrative processing" does not dispense with this duty because there has been no final adjudication. Any other conclusion about § 1202(b) and circumstances like these would allow DOS to evade any judicial review of delayed adjudications by issuing pro forma refusals while continuing to administratively process cases. The Court is unwilling to adopt "statutory interpretations which would produce absurd results."  Sheikhalizadehjahed v. Gaudiosi, No. 2:24-cv-1136 SCR, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188315, at *19 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2024) (quoting Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

Salarian v. Blinken, No. 23cv1315-LL-BJC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156782, (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2024)

In Salarian, Judge Linda Lopez noted that “[a]though Defendant contends that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate unreasonable delay based on the TRAC factors, the determination of whether the TRAC factors are satisfied as to Plaintiff's APA claims is not capable of resolution at this stage.” Salarian v. Blinken, No. 23cv1315-LL-BJC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156782, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2024) (Denying State Department’s motion to dismiss). 

Tamjidi v. Blinken, No. 8:24-cv-00403 HDV JDE, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178479, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024)

With respect to the State Department’s duty beyond a 221(g) decision, the Tamjidi court reasoned:

“[t]he plain language of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) compels the conclusion that Defendant has a mandatory duty to make [*8]  a final decision on the Petition. The relevant consular officer apparently has not done so. See Opposition at 4; see also Complaint ¶ 15. Instead, "[a]lthough a consular official interviewed Plaintiffs on January 11, 2023, [it] placed the case in administrative processing for additional screening to be conducted." Opposition at 11; see id. at 7 ("[T]he 'administrative processing' of Plaintiffs' application appears to be a routine procedure requiring consular background security checks to clear."). That is not enough to discharge the Consulate's duty under 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a).”

Tamjidi v. Blinken, No. 8:24-cv-00403 HDV JDE, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178479, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024).

Further, the court found that, at the motion to dismiss stage, “it is premature and improper to rule as a matter of law on whether the TRAC test is satisfied at this early stage.” Id. at *13.

Jafarzadeh et al v. Blinken et al, 1:23-cv-00770-KJM-CDB, (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2024) 

In Jafarzadeh, the court found “[b]ecause of the fact-intensive nature of the reasonableness determination, this court finds this inquiry is ultimately best resolved on a full factual record,” and “[a]ccordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim is denied.”

Iqbal v. Blinken (hereafter, Iqbal II), No. 2:23-cv-01299-KJM-KJN, (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2024) 

From (3) above, you can see this was an NVC delay lawsuit where we beat the government’s motion to dismiss, and then the government scheduled interviews, but one plaintiff went into AP. So, the government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment anyway, and...it did not go well for them. Highlights of the judge dismissing the motion for summary judgment:

“Here, it appears defendants are holding [Plaintiff]l’s visa application “in abeyance.” See id. Therefore, the court joins with the courts that have found the refusal of a visa application for administrative processing does not constitute a final decision. Because there has been no 5 final adjudication of Ms. Jamil’s visa application, plaintiffs’ claims are not moot.”

[TRAC Factor 4]

“Here, the parties agree SAO responses cannot be completed on a first-in, first-out basis. See Opp’n at 27; Reply at 12. Accordingly, there is no evidence adjudicating [Plaintiff]’s application will place her ahead of other similarly situated applicants who have been waiting the same amount or longer time. Moreover, defendants have not provided any evidence of the “line” plaintiffs are supposedly cutting. Apart from citing several cases, defendants have not produced evidence of what their competing or higher priorities are. They also have not produced evidence of the effect timely adjudicating [Plaintiff]’s application will have on those priorities. The court understands defendants have an important role in making sure visa applicants do not pose national security risks and are working with limited consular resources. However, these factors do not excuse defendants from their duty to adjudicate plaintiffs’ immigrant visa petitions within a reasonable time. The record before the court shows this factor weighs in favor of plaintiffs.”

[Conclusion]

“The court is concerned the “administrative processing” designation is a convenient bureaucratic label allowing defendants to place visa applicants like [Plaintiff] in limbo, where their visas are neither refused nor granted, but without any clear explanation as to when the administrative processing or additional security screening will be completed. Based on this record, the court cannot find the delay in this case is not unreasonable as a matter of law.” 

Fimbres v. Cohan, No. CV 23-00562-TUC-MAA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131382 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2024)

In Fimbres, the court interprets the State Department’s declaration in a 221(g)/ AP delay case for IR5 applicants interviewed in April 2023 as showing there has not been a final decision as plaintiffs were already undergoing additional screening. Under these circumstances, the court found Fimbres was entitled to bring an "unreasonable delay" claim. Fimbres v. Cohan, No. CV 23-00562-TUC-MAA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131382, at *9 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2024).

Igal v. United States Consulate Gen. in Johannesburg, No. 2:23-cv-4160 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101758 (S.D. OH. June 7, 2024)

In Igal, the court denied the State Department’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an US citizen and their IR1 applicant spouse who was interviewed in January 2023, (16 months ago).

US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson found that “Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for relief, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on [the issue of unreasonable delay] is DENIED.”  

Li v. Blinken, No. 8:23-cv-02142-DOC-KES, (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2024)

In Li, the court denied the same defendants’ motion to dismiss a case where a visa applicant plaintiff challenged the unreasonable delay in receiving a final adjudication following their interview. In Li, the court rejected defendants’ argument “that the pace of adjudicating a visa application is entirely discretionary.” Li v. Blinken, No. 8:23-cv-02142-DOC-KES, at 3, 4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2024) (finding “the pace of Plaintiff's application is nondiscretionary.”).

Further, the Li court found, despite a 221(g) temporary decision notice, “there appears to be additional steps needed for Plaintiff to receive a final determination on his application, meaning Defendants have not yet discharged its duty to act on Plaintiff’s application.” Id. at 5. Further, the Li court found “Plaintiff has adequately alleged Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing his application” when the complaint was filed seven months after the April 10, 2023  interview. Id. at 5. 

Download the Li order from our telegram channel: https://t.me/redeaglelaw/364 

Akhter v. Blinken, No. 2:23-cv-1374-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Oh. March 19, 2024)

In this lawsuit, the judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a case brought over unreasonable delays for a family-based visa applicant awaiting an interview at U.S. Embassy Islamabad, finding “[d]iscovery is…important here, at least with respect to the first and fourth TRAC factors.” Further, the Akhter court was “unpersuaded by the argument (made also in this case) that the action required by § 1202(b) is not incumbent on Defendants until a formal visa ‘application’ has been made through appearance ‘before a consular officer.’” Id. at 9.

Taherian v. Blinken, No. 8:23-cv-01927-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) 

In this lawsuit, 14 Iranian American families are represented by Red Eagle Law, L.C. The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss in part, finding that the case was not moot because “Plaintiffs demonstrate[d] that Defendants’ characterization of the visa decision process plausibly ‘conflicts with its own actual practices and statements.’” The court noted, “[e]ven though a preliminary decision is given, administrative processing for I-130 visas occurs after the interview stage,” and “that even the Department of State refers to these refusals that occur after interviews but before receiving the DS-5535 form as ‘quasi-refusals.’ The court concluded “it does not seem that Plaintiffs’ visa applications have been finally ruled upon such that their claims would be rendered moot,” and “[r]ather, Plaintiffs’ claims are ‘still pending necessary administrative processing,’ the next ‘required step in the visa process.” Also, the Taherian court “followed the guidance of many other district courts and save[d] the TRAC test for a later day.”

Basmanj et al v. US Department of State, Secretary et al, No. 1:23-cv-00231-JL-TSM (D.N.H. October 27, 2023).

In an October in New Hampshire, US District Court Judge Joseph N. Laplante denied the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for reasons shared in a hearing that same date. This was a mandamus lawsuit filed on behalf of an Iranian EB-1 category immigrant visa applicant who had been documentarily qualified for 19 months without being scheduled for an interview at US Embassy Ankara. In oral arguments, government’s counsel AUSA Anna Dronzek, conceded “I don't think any court in the country has ever said that [the State Department] ha[s] the discretion to never -- to take money for filing fees and never make a decision.” 

Akbar v Blinken, No. 23-cv-1054-LL-BLM (SDCA Dec. 18, 2023).

In this mandamus lawsuit, we represented plaintiffs awaiting the final adjudication of an Iranian IR5 visa application, where the applicant attended interview in November 2022. US District Court Judge Linda Lopez denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding “the determination of whether an agency’s delay is unreasonable is premature at this stage of the proceeding.” Akbar v Blinken, No. 23-cv-1054-LL-BLM at *8 (SDCA Dec. 18, 2023).

Raouf v. United States Dep't of State, No. 23-cv-302-LM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207113 (D.N.H. Nov. 20, 2023). 

The judge in Raouf, US District Judge Landya B. McCafferty, found a plaintiff’s allegations were “sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss her unreasonable delay claim when considered against the complex, fact-laden inquiry that analysis of such a claim will involve.”  Raouf v. United States Dep't of State, No. 23-cv-302-LM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207113, at *23 (D.N.H. Nov. 20, 2023). In Raouf, the visa petition had been submitted in 2020, but the interview occurred on August 23, 2022. Id.  

Further, because Judge McCafferty “[did] not reach the merits of Raouf's unreasonable delay claim,” she did not resolve the dispute as to how to calculate the length of the delay. Id. at 22 n.6. 

Salihi v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-718-MMA-AHG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206644 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2023). 

The judge in Salihi, US District Court Judge Michael M. Anello, found a six-year delay was plausibly unreasonable, measuring 6 years not from the government’s last action, which was sending a petition to NVC on July 6, 2023, but from when the petition was initially submitted to USCIS in 2017. Salihi v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-718-MMA-AHG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206644, at *19-20 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2023).  

Further, Judge Anello found “the “ultimate determination of whether the TRAC factors are satisfied is not capable of resolution on the pleadings and without further evidence and briefing.” Id. at 20.

Khan v. Blinken, No. 1:23-cv-1194-CAP (N.D. Georgia Nov. 9, 2023). 

A court in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Secretary Blinken’s motion to dismiss in a case brought over unreasonable delays in the final adjudications of visa applications following visa interviews. Khan v. Blinken, No. 1:23-cv-1194-CAP (N.D. Georgia Nov. 9, 2023). The judge in Khan found “given the extensive time period (more than 14 months) the application has remained pending with no action, the court cannot, at the pleading stage, [hold that the delay is not unreasonable.” Id. at 3.  

Further, the Khan court found a 221(g) temporary refusal “was not a refusal of her visa application,” and that “the doctrine of consular non-reviewability is not triggered… as there has been no final decision” on the visa application.” Id.

Iqbal v. Blinken, No. 2:23-cv-01299-KJM-KJN, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201592, (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2023)  

In a lawsuit where I represent three family-based visa applicants awaiting interviews at U.S. Embassy Islamabad, a judge in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, US District Court Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in a lawsuit brought over unreasonable delays. Iqbal v. Blinken, No. 2:23-cv-01299-KJM-KJN, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201592, at *22 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2023).  

Judge Mueller found “the reasonableness inquiry is best resolved ultimately on a full factual record,” and since “plaintiffs ha[d] sufficiently pled defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating their visa applications…., defendants' motion to dismiss claims [for unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding] for failure to state a claim are denied.” Id. at 22.  

What I liked most about this order is Judge Mueller chose to reject the State Department’s argument that State Department did not have a duty to schedule interviews, writing “The court is disinclined to adopt ‘statutory interpretations which would produce absurd results.” Id. (quoting Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010).   

This decision followed oral arguments held in Sacramento in October. See transcript. Also, here’s a link to the order.

Zunier v. Blinken, No. 3:22-cv-217, (S.D. Oh. Sep. 22, 2023). 

Similarly, a judge in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, US District Court Judge Walter H. Rice, denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in a lawsuit brought over unreasonable delays for a family-based visa applicant awaiting an interview at U.S. Embassy Islamabad. Zunier v. Blinken, No. 3:22-cv-217, (S.D. Oh. Sep. 22, 2023).  

The judge in Zunier found that “because the procedural posture of this case and the above-referenced deficiencies in the factual record do not sustain Defendants' argument under the TRAC factors, their motion to dismiss is overruled.” Id. at 16. (TRAC refers to Telecomm ‘ns Research & Action Ctr. v. F. C. C., 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984), a famous court decision setting a standard to assess unreasonable delay claims).

Mahmood v. Blinken, No. 23-1596, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177638, (E.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2023). 

A judge in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, US District Court Judge J. Kearney, denied in part the State Department defendants’ motion to dismiss in a lawsuit brought over unreasonable delays for family-based visa applicants awaiting interviews at U.S. Embassy Islamabad. Mahmood v. Blinken, No. 23-1596, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177638, (E.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2023).  

Judge Kearney found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged unreasonable delay because “our present inability to measure ‘reasonableness’ of the delay until we know more about the reasons for the delay.” Id. at 17. Judge Kearney found that, “[w]e cannot today measure the reasonableness of the delay in the processing of visa petitions as a matter of law” and that “[w]e will review a developed record.” Id. at 18. Judge Kearney’s order was 35 pages, with 161 footnotes!