UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SWAPNA SANDESH SINHA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 20-cv-2814 (DLF) ANTONY BLINKEN, Secretary, U.S. Department of State,1 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Swapna Sandesh Sinha, an Indian citizen, and Strategism, a California corporation, petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to adjudicate his visa application, citing “the delay in issuance (or refusal) of Plaintiff Sinha’s visa.” Compl. at 45, Dkt. 1. The Secretary has moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that he has refused Sinha’s application and thus Sinha’s request is moot. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 11, Dkt. 13-1. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Secretary’s motion and dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows employers to sponsor temporary, non- immigrant workers “in a specialty occupation” for an H1-B visa. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1 When this complaint was filed, Michael Pompeo was the Secretary of State. When Antony Blinken became Secretary, he was substituted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1184(a). An employer begins this process by requesting “a certification from the Department of Labor that it has filed a labor condition application in the occupational specialty in which the alien[] will be employed.” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(1). After receiving such a certification, “[t]he employer must file a petition with the [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)] for review of the services or training and for determination of the alien’s eligibility for classification as a temporary employee or trainee.” Id. § 214.2(h)(1)(i). This visa petition process must be complete “before the alien may apply for a visa.” Id. Next, the alien must complete the actual visa application through the Department of State by applying at his local embassy or consulate. See Gomez v. Trump, 485 F. Supp. 3d 145, 159 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing 9 FAM § 402.10; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1201(g)). This typically includes an in-person interview that results in a grant or denial of the visa application. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1), 1202(h); 22 C.F.R. § 42.62. Federal regulations provide that the consular officer “must issue the visa, refuse the visa, or . . . discontinue granting the visa.” 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a). As applicable to the case at bar, a consular officer may refuse a visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) if it appears to him that the alien is “ineligible to receive a visa” or that the visa “application fails to comply with the” relevant legal requirements. If the officer suspects fraud, he may notify USCIS for further investigation of the visa petition by that agency. See Howard Decl. ¶ 5, Dkt. 13-2. B. Factual Background Sinha, an Indian citizen living in New Delhi, is the chief executive officer and partial owner of Strategism, a California corporation and co-plaintiff here.2 Compl. ¶¶ 45–46, 51. On September 23, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals