UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FARANGIS KHAMRABAEVA, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 22-cv-1219 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 14, 16, 20 : ANTONY BLINKEN, : U.S. Secretary of State, et al., : : Defendants. : ZEBO MAVLONOVA, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 22-cv-2400 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 3, 9, 11 : ANTONY BLINKEN, : U.S. Secretary of State, et al., : : Defendants. : NOHA MAHMOUD ELSAYED : ELSADAWY, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 22-cv-1381 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 15, 16, 19 : ANTONY BLINKEN, : U.S. Secretary of State, et al., : : Defendants. : SHERIF SHAABAN IBRAHIM DAIF, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 22-cv-2474 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 6, 7, 9 : ANTONY BLINKEN, : U.S. Secretary of State, et al., : : Defendants. : KHOLMATJON VOKHOBOV, et al. : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 22-cv-2128 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 8, 9, 11 : ANTONY BLINKEN, : U.S. Secretary of State, et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are motions for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in five cases. 1 In each case, Plaintiffs are families of foreign nationals who were selected out of a lottery run by the U.S. Department of State (the “Department”) to participate in the diversity visa (“DV”) program for fiscal year 2022. The DV program allocates up to 55,000 immigration visas annually to qualified individuals from countries with historically low levels of immigration to the United States through an intricate lottery system. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the 1 Although Plaintiffs’ motion is not styled as a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court treats it as such because it was subject to full briefing and a hearing and Plaintiffs are “effectively foreclose[d] . . . from pursuing further interlocutory relief.” Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted); see also Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 145 (3d Cir. 2010) (treating a TRO as a preliminary injunction because “it was entered for an indeterminate period of time after notice to the defendant and an adversary hearing”). 2 Department unlawfully withheld adjudication of their diversity visa applications. In early September 2022,2 Plaintiffs filed substantially similar TRO motions in each case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief ahead of September 30, 2022, the statutory deadline after which their eligibility to participate in the fiscal year 2022 DV program expires. Defendants filed an opposition in Khamrabaeva v. Blinken, No. 22-cv-1219 on September 13, 2022 (“Def.’s Opp’n”). At the Court’s request, Defendants submitted a joint opposition, incorporating and supplementing the opposition in Khamrabaeva, in the remaining four cases on September 16, 2022 (“Def.’s Joint Opp’n”) and Plaintiffs filed a joint reply on September 19, 2022. The Court held a hearing on the motions on September …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals