UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZAHRA ABOUTALEBI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 19-2605 (TJK) DEPARTMENT OF STATE et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Zahra Aboutalebi, an Iranian citizen, brought this action to challenge Defendants’ failure to adjudicate her visa application; she also alleged that any later denial would be unlawful. She subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction to compel Defendants to adjudicate her application. Defendants have since denied her application. For that reason, they argue that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Aboutalebi’s claims are either moot or unreviewable under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. As explained below, the Court agrees and will dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Background A. The Complaint Aboutalebi is an Iranian citizen pursuing a Doctor of Juridical Science at Harvard Law School. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 2. She began her studies in 2013 and was scheduled to resume them in fall 2018. Id. ¶ 6. To do so, she needed a J-1 Visa, which she applied for at the U.S. Embassy in London in May 2018. Id. ¶¶ 13, 24. By August of the following year, her application was allegedly still “in administrative processing pending final adjudication.” Id. ¶ 25. And with the start of the next school year approaching, she sued the Department of State, Michael Pompeo in his official capacity as Secretary of State, the U.S. Embassy and Consulate in London, and Karen Ogle in her official capacity as Consular General at the U.S. Embassy in London. Id. ¶¶ 7–10, 19. She alleges that Defendants were unreasonable in delaying her visa because they inappropriately applied “President Trump’s extreme vetting policy” to her. Id. ¶¶ 42–44. She claims this delay jeopardizes her ability to complete her studies and will cause her to lose scholarships and grants. Id. ¶¶ 54–60. Aboutalebi asserts five causes of action. Counts I and II allege that the government acted unlawfully in various ways by delaying the adjudication of her application. Id. ¶¶ 72–92. Count III asks the Court to declare that she is eligible for a visa and to “order the Defendants to adjudicate and promptly issue the J-1 Visa to the Plaintiff.” Id. ¶¶ 93–95. Count IV preemptively alleges that any subsequent adverse final decision on her application would be “a retaliatory act designed to moot this lawsuit and avoid judicial review” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Id. ¶¶ 96–102. And Count V alleges that Defendants violated the APA by not allowing counsel to appear with her during various stages of the application process. Id. ¶¶ 103–116. B. Aboutalebi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction About two weeks after filing suit, Aboutalebi moved for a preliminary injunction, or, in the alternative, for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 4. 1 In her motion, she reiterated that “[s]he [would] lose her position as an S.J.D. Candidate as well as her grants and scholarships, if Defendants do not promptly issue her J-1 visa.” ECF No. 4-1 at 2. And she specifically ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals