UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SATOSHI NISHIHATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-2173 (CKK) ANTONY BLINKEN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 30, 2021) Plaintiffs Satoshi Nishihata and Ayaka Nishihata are applicants for diversity visas for the fiscal year 2021 diversity visa program. 1 By statute, their eligibility to receive diversity visas expires on September 30, 2021. Plaintiffs have not yet been deemed “documentarily qualified,” nor have they received consular interview appointments—both of which are prerequisites to obtaining a diversity visa. In light of the fast-approaching September 30, 2021 deadline, Plaintiffs filed an [9] Motion for a Temporary Restraining (“TRO”) on September 27, 2021. Therein, Plaintiffs request an order compelling Defendants to reserve two diversity visas pending this litigation, past the statutory September 30, 2021 deadline. Upon consideration of the pleadings, 2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ [9] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and will HOLD IN ABEYANCE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 1 Plaintiff Chihito Omori filed a [8] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on September 25, 2021. 2 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Injunction (“Pls.’ TRO Mot.”); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for TRO and Relief Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 (“Pls.’ TRO Mem.”), ECF No. 10; Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Mandatory Injunction (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), ECF Nos. 13 1 I. BACKGROUND A. The Diversity Visa Program Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), “Congress has provided for up to 55,000 immigrant diversity visas to be distributed each fiscal year to foreign nationals that hail from countries with historically low levels of immigration to the United States.” Filazapovich v. Dep’t of State, No. 21-cv-943 (APM), 2021 WL 4127726, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2021) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151(e), 1153(c)). “Millions of hopefuls enter a lottery for the chance to apply for one of the 55,000 allotted diversity visas.” Id. (citing Gomez v. Trump (“Gomez I”), 485 F. Supp. 3d 145, 159 (D.D.C. 2020)). The winners of the lottery “submit an application and various documents to be eligible for a visa number,” which can be used only during the fiscal year for which the selectee applied. Almaqrami v. Pompeo, 933 F.3d 774, 776–77 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Once the selectee is assigned a visa number, he or she must submit required documents to the Kentucky Consular Center (“KCC”). See 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(1). The KCC then reviews the submitted materials for completion, and, upon deeming the applicant “documentarily qualified,” schedules an interview at a local consular office for the applicant when [his or her] regional lottery rank number is “about to become current.” 9 FAM 502.6-4(d)(2); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (“All immigrant visa applications shall be reviewed and adjudicated by a consular officer.”). A visa interview is scheduled “only if the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals