UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KATHERINE DANIELA PACHECO QUIROS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 21-02433 (CKK) v. MOLLY AMADOR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (July 6, 2023) In this action, twenty-three Plaintiffs sought injunctive and mandamus relief ordering officials of the United States Department of State (“State Department”), the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to act on and grant their immigration visa applications and set aside various State Department policies and regulations. Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [27] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), in which they also move for summary judgment under Rule 56 and, in the alternative, to sever Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 21. Upon consideration of the briefing1, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ [15] Amended Complaint in its entirety. As Plaintiffs consent to their dismissal, the Court shall dismiss Counts II, III, and IV, and Count I as to all Plaintiffs but Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family. The 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss), ECF No. 27; Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Pls.’ Opp’n.”), ECF No. 30; Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (Defs.’ Reply), ECF No. 31; and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Am. Compl.), ECF No. 15. 1 Court shall dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint as to Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family on the merits. The Court will DENY AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion in so far as Defendants move for summary judgment and to sever Plaintiffs’ claims. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit in September 2019 and filed an Amended Complaint on December 18, 2021. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to compel the Government to decide their various requests for immigrant visas. See generally Am. Compl. Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and also moved for summary judgment. Defs.’ Mot. at 1. They also moved, in the alternative, to sever Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Id. This Motion is now fully briefed and ripe for the Court’s review. In their opposition, Plaintiffs write that they “agree that Counts II, III and IV of the First Amended Complaint are moot” and that Count I is moot as to all Plaintiffs other than Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family. Pls.’ Opp’n at 5. Accordingly, as the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to those claims, with Plaintiffs’ consent, the Court addresses below only the procedural history of the applications of Plaintiffs Gulshan Karimova and the A. Davila Rivero Family. B. Visa Application of Plaintiff Karimova and A. Davila Rivero Family A Form I-140, Petition for Alien Worker, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals