UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MANAL M. IBRAHIM, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 19-610 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Manal M. Ibrahim, who is a U.S. citizen, and her parents, Mohammad A.A. Zaben and Khitam S.M. Zaben (“Mr. and Ms. Zaben” or “the Zabens”), who are residents of the Israeli territories, initiated this case, on March 5, 2019, seeking to compel the defendants—the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem (“Consulate”), and various federal officials in their official capacities—“to immediately and forthwith take all appropriate action to issue a decision on the Immigrant Visa applications of the [Zabens].” Compl. for Issuance of Writ of Mandamus (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.1 During the year-long pendency of this lawsuit, the defendants have, with the plaintiffs’ consent, requested and received extensions of time for the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ claims, as the defendants anticipated that the Zabens’ visa applications would soon be adjudicated, rendering this case moot. See, e.g., Defs.’ Consent Mot. for Extension of Time to File Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Compl. (“Defs.’ May Extension Request”) ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 8. Now, pending before the Court is the defendants’ 1 Some federal officials named in the complaint have been succeeded in office since the complaint was filed and are automatically replaced by their successor officials. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d). In addition, the day before the plaintiffs filed suit, “[o]n March 4, 2019, U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem . . . merge[d] into U.S. Embassy Jerusalem to form a single diplomatic mission,” Statement, Robert Palladino, Deputy Spokesperson, U.S. Embassy in Isr., Merger of U.S. Embassy Jerusalem and U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem (Mar. 3, 2019), https://il.usembassy.gov/merger-of-u-s-embassy-jerusalem-and-u-s-consulate-general-jerusalem/, which merger has no effect on the parties’ dispute. 1 motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), because, in defendants’ view, decisions on the Zabens’ visa applications have been made. See Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 15. Specifically, after the complaint was filed, “a consular officer of the United States refused plaintiff Mohammed A. A. Zaben’s immigrant visa application on May 3, 2019 and . . . plaintiff Khitam S. M. Zaben’s immigrant visa application remains refused as of February 3, 2020.” Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 1 (citation omitted), ECF No. 15.2 Although Mr. Zaben’s immigrant visa application has been denied, the defendants mischaracterize the legal significance of the so-called “refusal” of Ms. Zaben’s application. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND As noted, Ibrahim is a United States citizen and the daughter of Mr. and Ms. Zaben, who are residents of the Israeli territories. Compl. ¶¶ 1–2. In July 2012, Ibrahim submitted Form I- 130 petitions to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), seeking immigrant visas on behalf ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals