UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MYRANDA NICOLE MURWAY, et al., _) Plaintiffs ) Vv. Civil Case No. 21-1618 (RJL) ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary of State, et al., ) Defendants. ) unvonaaenT Ormnon February /6 , 2022 [Dkt. # 6] In this case, plaintiffs Myranda Nicole Murway (“Murway”) and Sikhumbuzo Andre Butle Duma (“Duma”) allege that various federal officials (“the Government”) have unreasonably delayed processing their fiancé visa application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). For the following reasons, I will GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND Murway is an American citizen engaged to marry Duma, a non-citizen who lives in South Africa. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Writ of Mandamus (“Compl.”) [Dkt. # 1] 99 31, 5-10. Plaintiffs seek a K-1 nonimmigrant visa that would allow Duma to move to the United States. See id. Jf 10-11, 42. The Government processes K-1 fiancé visas though five steps. First, a sponsor files a Form I1-129F petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k); accord Visas for Fiancé(e)s of U.S. Citizens, USCIS, https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for- fiancees-of-us-citizens (last visited Feb. 16, 2022) (“K-1 Visa Guidance Page”). Second, if USCIS finds that the applicant is eligible, it will forward the Form I-129F to the Department of State National Visa Center (“NVC”). See K-1 Visa Guidance Page. Third, NVC will forward the Form I-129F to the applicant’s local U.S. consulate. Id. Fourth, consular staff will interview the applicant-fiancé. Id. Fifth, the consular officer will decide whether to issue a nonimmigrant visa. Jd. In this case, plaintiffs are in either the second or third step. The plaintiffs filed their I-129F petition on April 24, 2020. Compl. § 45. USCIS approved the petition and forwarded it to NVC on May 6, 2021. Jd. § 46. At present, the petition is either pending at NVC or the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg, South Africa. Id. J 47-48. Plaintiffs filed this case on June 14, 2021 alleging that the Government has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their visa application. See id. §§ 52-74. The Government has moved to dismiss, and the motion has been fully briefed. See Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) [Dkt. # 6]; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”) [Dkt. # 8]; Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Reply”) [Dkt. # 9]. LEGAL STANDARD The Court may dismiss a complaint if it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Sarlak v. Pompeo, No. CV 20-35, 2020 WL 3082018, at *5 (D.D.C. June 10, 2020) (Howell, C.J.) (collecting cases evaluating unreasonable delay at the motion to dismiss stage). At this stage, “a court must g accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,” but it need not accept “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action[.]” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals