Rahimian v. Blinken

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YOUSOF RAHIMIAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-785 (BAH) ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell capacity as Secretary of State, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Yousof Rahimian, a U.S. citizen, seeks to compel defendants—various federal officials in their official capacities—to adjudicate his wife’s visa application, which has been pending without decision for over three years. Amended Compl. (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 14, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff claims defendants have unreasonably delayed the visa application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), id. ¶ 14–29, and the Mandamus Act, id. ¶ 30–34, and have done so intentionally by applying the policies of the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”) to their review of the visa application, id. ¶ 35–39, in violation of the Immigration and National Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the APA, id. ¶ 40. Defendants have moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss & Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.’ Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 8. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. I. BACKGROUND 1 Following a brief review of the statutory and regulatory background, the factual history underlying the claims and procedural history of this case are summarized below. A. Statutory and Regulatory Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., authorizes the issuance of visas to different categories of immigrants, including relatives of U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1), (b). A U.S. citizen seeking to obtain lawful permanent resident status for an immediate relative, including a spouse, must file a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154, 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (defining a spouse as an “immediate relative” of a citizen for the purposes of Form I-130 petitioners); 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). If USCIS approves the petition, the case is forwarded to the National Visa Center (“NVC”), which is the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”) visa application processing center. Id. § 204.2(a)(3). The foreign spouse must then submit additional paperwork and fees to NVC. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.67 (outlining application fees and additional documentation that an applicant must submit to NVC to complete the application, including an oath and a signature on Forms DS-230 and 260, a “[f]orm of attestation for certain repeat applications due to COVID-19,” registration requirements, and fingerprints). After processing the requisite materials, NVC schedules an interview for the applicant with a consular officer at the embassy with jurisdiction over the applicant’s residence. Id. § 42.62. Following the interview, the consular officer must either issue or refuse the visa. Id. § 42.81(a). B. Factual Background In February 2018, plaintiff …

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