UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) PRITHVI VULUPALA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-378 (ABJ) ) WILLIAM P. BARR, ) in his official capacity as ) Attorney General ) of the United States, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Court to order the defendants, U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr, U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Carl Risch, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, 1 Consul General-U.S. Consulate-Hyderabad, India Katherine Hadda, and Consular Officers John Does # 1–10, to perform their non-discretionary duty to adjudicate his visa application. See generally Compl. [Dkt. # 1]. The petition is combined with a complaint that seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under section 706(1) et seq., of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq.; in it, plaintiff asks the Court to declare that since September 2018, defendants have unreasonably delayed final adjudication of his H-1B work visa application, and to compel them to make the awaited determination. Compl. at 19. 1 The Court notes that Chad Wolf has been named Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and is, therefore, substituted as defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff’s claims are foreclosed by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 7] (“Defs.’ Mot.”); Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. [Dkt. #7-1] (“Defs.’ Mem.”). The motion will be denied because the doctrine applies to final decisions made by the agency, and plaintiff’s application is still under review. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Prithvi Vulupala, a citizen of India, entered the United States in 2013 on an F-1 visa, which allowed him to complete a master’s degree at a university in Texas. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 31. In 2016, after completing additional optional training, plaintiff began working for 9to9 Software Solutions, LLC in the United States as a Technical Lead/SAN Engineer. Compl. ¶ 32. In August 2018, plaintiff returned to India to visit his family. Compl. ¶ 34. While there, he began the process of applying for an H-1B visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Compl. ¶ 34. An H-1B visa authorizes American employers to hire foreign workers trained in specialty occupations for a temporary period of time. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(1)(ii)(B). As a necessary first step, 9to9 Software submitted an I-129 Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker on plaintiff’s behalf on April 13, 2016, and it was approved. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 32; Ex. A to Notice of Pl.’s Position [Dkt. # 13-1]. On September 5, 2018, plaintiff participated in a mandatory visa interview at the U.S. consulate in Hyderabad, India. Compl. ¶ 35. He alleges that at the conclusion of the interview, he was told that “everything looked good.” Compl. ¶ 35. On September 19, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals