UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMPSY DEAN Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 21-2002 (CKK) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (July 15, 2022) In this visa case, Plaintiff Dempsy Dean (“Plaintiff” or “Dean”) seeks injunctive and mandamus relief ordering officials of the United States Department of State (“State Department”) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to more expeditiously process a Form I-130 immigrant visa for his spouse, Penzy Kanwal (“Beneficiary”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) bar on “unreasonabl[e] delay.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). In addition to his APA claim, Plaintiff brings a procedural due process claim, alleging unconstitutional delay and irrevocable harm, and an equal protection claim under the Fifth Amendment, alleging discriminatory treatment. Because DHS has already conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), the Court shall DISMISS as moot the complaint as against the DHS defendants. The Court shall also DISMISS the remaining claims as against the State Department defendants for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, and upon review of the 1 pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authority, and the record as a whole, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [6] Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Background A lawful permanent resident applying for a visa for a family member must comply with a multi-step process governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). First, the applicant must submit a Form I-130 petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”), an agency within DHS. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). In reviewing the I-130 petition, USCIS has applied the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”) to some, but not all, applications. See Jafarzadeh v. Duke, 270 F. Supp. 3d 296, 300 (D.D.C. 2017). CARRP is a program, allegedly ongoing, that purportedly “flags” some visa applicants for additional review based on national security concerns. See id. at 301. If DHS grants the I- 130 petition it must then send the application to the National Visa Center (“NVC”), a branch of the State Department, for further processing, whether it has employed CARRP or not. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(3). 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1; • Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Mot.”), ECF No. 6; • Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Opp.”), ECF No. 8; and • Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, (“Reply”), ECF No. 9. In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f). Additionally, the Court did not consider Plaintiff’s [10] Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit, and as such, denies the [10] Motion because, as discussed infra, loss of consortium has no impact on the Court’s analysis. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals