UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANDI GJOCI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:21-cv-00294-RCL DEPARTMENT OF STATE, etal., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs are individuals hoping to receive a diversity visa, a document that will permit them to travel to a port of entry and request permission to enter the United States. See Gomez v. Trump, 485 F. Supp. 3d 145, 158 (D.D.C. 2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(h). They were selected out of a highly competitive lottery and, by statute, will remain eligible to receive a visa until September 30, 2021. See Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 776-77 (D.C. Cir. 2019). In this case, plaintiffs accuse defendants-federal government entities charged with administering the diversity visa program-of unlawfully suspending diversity-visa processing. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 1 391 , 393. They filed their complaint on February 1, 2021. Id. at 1. Defendants concede that-at the time the complaint was filed-diversity visa applications were not being processed. See ECF No. 20 at 12. But after the complaint was filed, the regime for processing diversity visas changed. On February 24, 2021, President Biden revoked former- President Trump's Presidential Proclamations on which the suspension of visa processing was based. See Proclamation No. 10149, 86 Fed. Reg. 11,847 (Feb. 24, 2021). Defendants then began processing diversity visas again under new guidance that they say is aimed at protecting the health and safety of their employees and managing resources during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. l See, e.g., ECF No. 20 at 19; ECF 20-1 at 11, 15. And while the parties dispute whether defendants' pandemic guidance from 2020 (called "Diplomacy Strong" and "Mission Critical") still governs plaintiffs' application processing, see, e.g., ECF No. 20 at 22; ECF No. 22 at 19, it is not disputed that diversity visa applications are currently being processed, ECF No. 22 at 8, 24-27 . Despite these changes, on April 11, 2021, plaintiffs moved for a "preliminary and/or permanent injunction" asking the Court to declare unlawful or enjoin defendants' policies that resulted in the suspension of the program. ECF No. 6. They argue that preliminary relief is necessary because the fiscal year deadline to process these applications (September 30) is approaching. E.g., id. at 15. They also propose additional or alternative equitable remedies, like tolling of the September 30, 2021 statutory deadline. Id. at 28-31. ***** A plaintiffs request for preliminary injunctive relief must mirror the allegations and relief sought in the complaint. See De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) ("A preliminary injunction is [] appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." (emphasis added)). As another member of this Court explained, "a proper motion for a preliminary injunction seeks to enjoin the action that the complaint alleges is unlawful prior to the completion of the litigation, and without such a connection between the claim and requested injunction, there is simply no jurisdictional basis for the Court to grant preliminary relief." Bird v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals