Keyhanpoor v. Blinken


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAGHAYEGH KEYHANPOOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-1182 (TJK) ANTONY BLINKEN et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs—two foreign visa applicants, two U.S. citizens, and a nonprofit—sued various federal officials to challenge the denial of visa applications under federal immigration law. They allege that consular officers refused to issue visas for the applicants because of their past service in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case. 1 I. Background Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizens living abroad must apply for and receive a visa to permanently reside in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). If a noncitizen abroad has a U.S. citizen relative, that relative may file a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). If approved, the noncitizen may submit a visa application to a local consulate and 1 Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Local Civil Rule 7(n). ECF No. 27. That rule required Defendants to file a certified list of the contents of certain administrative records “simultaneously with the filing of [their] dispositive motion.” LCvR 7(n)(1). Plaintiffs opposed the motion. ECF No. 29. Because the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the complaint alone, it will also grant this motion. interview with a consular officer. See Ghadami v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 19- cv-397 (ABJ), 2020 WL 1308376, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2020); 22 C.F.R. §§ 204.2(a)(3), 42.67(a)(3). The decision whether to grant a visa lies with the consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). But the INA itself sets out various grounds on which a noncit- izen may be inadmissible and ineligible for a visa, including the Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (“TRIG”). 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), (a)(3)(B). Among the TRIG classifications, members of terrorist organizations and those who have “received military-type training . . . from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization” are inadmissible. Id. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(V)–(VI), (VIII). There are three “tiers” of “terrorist organizations” under TRIG. They include any organi- zation (I) designated under section 1189 of [the INA]; (II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State . . . as a terrorist or- ganization, after finding that the organization engages in [terrorist activity]; or (III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in . . . [terrorist activity]. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). The consular officer determines whether a visa applicant is inad- missible under TRIG. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). In 2019, the State Department designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”) a Tier I Foreign Terrorist Organization under …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals