UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) SYED RIZWAN AHMED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 21-cv-893 (APM) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Plaintiff Syed Rizwan Ahmed is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has filed a spouse visa application on behalf of his wife, Aleena Siddiqui, a citizen of Pakistan. Compl. in the Nature of Mandamus Arising from Defs.’ Refusal to Adjudicate Pl.’s Immigrant Visa Appl., ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], ¶¶ 14, 16. Under the normal process for such petitions, the petitioning spouse must file a Form I-130—a Petition for Alien Relative—with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). Once USCIS approves the petition, the petition is sent to the State Department’s processing center; next, the foreign spouse submits another application and, eventually, participates in an interview at the embassy with jurisdiction over their residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(3); 22 C.F.R. § 42.62. Finally, after the interview, “the consular office must [either] issue [or] refuse the visa.” 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he first filed a Form I-130 for Ms. Siddiqui on February 22, 2018; that USCIS approved the petition on September 5, 2019; that the State Department’s processing center assigned the application a case number at some point after that; but that the State Department still has not scheduled Ms. Siddiqui’s interview. Compl. ¶¶ 17–21. Plaintiff believes that the delay stems from the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), a program that “intentionally delays [some] applications . . . due to security concerns.” Id. ¶¶ 28–29. He therefore brings this action, calling on the court to compel defendants to adjudicate the petition and hold CARRP unlawful. See Compl. at 8–9. He asserts two claims: one under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking relief for “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the other under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V. He names as defendants the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); USCIS; the State Department; the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of DHS; Tracy Renaud, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of USCIS; Antony Blinken, Secretary of State; and Angela Aggeler, Chargé of the U.S. Consulate in Islamabad (collectively, “the Government”). See Compl. ¶¶ 3–10. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, a writ of mandamus, and attorney’s fees. Compl. at 8–9. The Government has moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. See Mot. to Dismiss, Mot. for Summ. J. & Mem. in Supp. Thereof, ECF No. 4 [hereinafter Defs.’ Mot.]. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the Government’s motion. II. When deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), a court …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals