UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FATEMEH AKBAR, ) Plaintiff, v. ) Civil Case No. 18-2808 KENNETH CUCCINELLI, e¢ ai. Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Fatemeh Akbar, an Iranian national, brings this action against federal defendants alleging that they unlawfully denied her Form 1-485 application for adjustment of status (to become a permanent U.S. resident). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”).! She asks the Court to declare defendants’ Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) arbitrary and capricious; to compel defendants to rescind the NOID; and to compel defendants to adjudicate her application in accordance with governing law within fourteen days of the Court’s order. Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Administrative Action. ECF No. 14-1. Also before the Court is defendants’ Motion for Relief from Local Rule 7(n)(1). ECF No. 15. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Relief. In dismissing the case, the Court will not reach defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue or Motion to Stay. ’ Plaintiff originally petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel review of her application. ECF No. 1. On July 26, 2019, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims under the APA and DJA in response to defendants’ Notice of Intent to Deny her application. ECF No. 10. l Background Plaintiff is currently a beneficiary of an I-130 filed by her husband, who is a permanent U.S. resident. Am. Compl. 7, ECF No. 10. In November 2015, she filed for an I-485 application for adjustment of status. /d. She and her husband were interviewed at the Detroit, Michigan U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) office in June 2016, but she heard nothing from the agency for more than two years after the interview. /d. [{ 8-9. This delay prompted her to file suit against defendants in December 2018. Jd. { 10. The couple was called back for a second interview at the same USCIS office in May 2019. Id. 4 12. In July 2019, USCIS issued the NOID, which plaintiff challenges as unlawful. /d. {§ 13, 16. The NOID lists specific concerns related to her association with two Iranian professors while she was a student, as well as her connection to an Iranian company with direct dealings with the Iranian government.” /d. 4 14. But the NOID does not deny her application outright—it provides ? The NOID states: The record evidences that you have had a close association with Professor Mojtaba Atarodi, who, on or about April 18, 2013, was convicted . . . on charges of violating the International Emergency Powers Act. Specifically, Mr. Atarodi was convicted of Conspiracy to Export Goods to Iran Without a License,.... In his plea agreement Professor Atarodi admits the electronic components which he illegally exported to Iran were ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals