UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ARSHAK REZVANI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03381 (CJN)

MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiffs are eight Iranian nationals whose applications for nonimmigrant visas were refused pursuant to INA Section 221(g) and then placed into “administrative processing.” 1 ECF

No. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 2, 4. That status reflects that, although the visa application has been “officially refused,” “th[e] refusal may (or may not) be overcome with new information at a later date.”

Karimova v. Abate, 2024 WL 3517852, at *2 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (citing 9 Foreign

Affairs Manual (“FAM”) § 306.2-2(A)(a)). “[K]eeping the door open in administrative processing can only benefit, never hurt, [an] applicant’s entry prospects.” Id. But plaintiffs here allege that the indefinite nature of administrative processing means that the government has unreasonably delayed in conclusively adjudicating their visa applications, and so seek an order compelling such an adjudication. Compl. ¶¶ 4–7.

It is true that, when a visa applicant “execute[s]” his application “by bringing the required paperwork to an in-person interview with a consular officer,” “the consular officer—by regulation—must issue or refuse the visa.”2 Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *1 (citing 9 FAM

§ 504.1-3(a), (g); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a)) (quotation marks omitted). But as the Court of Appeals recently explained, a visa applicant whose application is refused and then placed into administrative processing has still “received the ‘refused’ decision that the law expressly authorizes as one of the allowed actions on a visa application.” Id. at *4 (citing 22 C.F.R. § 42.81;

8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)). Plaintiffs thus cannot show that defendants “failed to take a discrete agency

action that [they were] required to take,” as required for injunctive relief under either the APA or the Mandamus Act. Id. at *1.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court of Appeals’ (unpublished) decision in Karimova is not on point because, whereas the plaintiff there relied on “only Section 555(b)” of the APA “as the source of the consular officer’s alleged duty to act,” id. at *3, plaintiffs here have “invoked more specific legal authorities . . . , including 22 C.F.R. § 42.81 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 1153.”3 ECF No. 12

(Opp.) at 11. But plaintiffs miss the broader thrust of Karimova, which is that an INA § 221(g) refusal followed by administrative processing is a refusal. See Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at

*4 (citing 22 C.F.R. § 42.81; 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)). It is thus not clear how, under the persuasive logic of Karimova, any provision of law requiring that visas be either issued or refused, see 8

U.S.C. § 1201(g), 22 C.F.R. §§ 41.121(a), 42.81(a), or otherwise mandating “agency action,” see 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), could remain unsatisfied by the § 221(g) refusals that plaintiffs received. ^[4] See, e.g., Ibrahim v. Spera, 2024 WL 4103702, at *3 (D.D.C. 2024) (rejecting argument that Karimova is “confined to the issue of whether the APA alone created a duty for the Department of State to complete administrative processing” because “one cannot read Karimova as saying anything other

than a 221(g) refusal and placement in administrative processing was a conclusion”). “Similarly, to the extent that the State Department’s collection of fees under 22 C.F.R. § 41.107 creates a duty to complete the corresponding service, the consular officer did so by issuing the refusal decision.”

Hemmat v. Blinken, 2024 WL 4210658, at *4 (D.D.C. 2024). And insofar as plaintiffs seek to rely on various other immigration-related regulations or statutes, such as those requiring consular officers to process certain application forms “in accordance with applicable regulations” or to allocate visas to certain demographic groups in certain amounts, see 22 C.F.R. § 41.106, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153, plaintiffs do not explain how those discrete provisions impose a clear duty on any consular

officer to “not put an officially refused visa application in administrative processing.” Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *3.

The government further argues that, because plaintiffs have received the visa refusals to which the law entitles them, their claims also fail under the consular non-reviewability doctrine.

ECF No. 9 (Mot.) at 14. That “longstanding principle” provides that, when a consular officer decides “to admit or [] exclude” a noncitizen, his decision is “immune from judicial inquiry or interference” unless Congress specifically provides otherwise. Dep’t of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S.

899, 907–08, 915 (2024). The Court agrees that, under Karimova’s logic that a refusal followed by administrative processing is itself a decision of exclusion, the consular non-reviewability doctrine would likely apply. See Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *6 (describing the plaintiff as seeking “yet another ‘final decision’ on her already-refused visa application”); see also Motevali v. Blinken, 2024 WL3580937, at *4 (D.D.C. 2024) (observing that Karimova “casts doubt on”

“prior decisions [by courts in this district] rejecting the government’s reliance on the consular non- reviewability doctrine in cases [involving visa applications subject to administrative processing

after Section 221(g) refusals]”). But because Karimova expressly declined to decide whether the “principle of nonreviewability” would apply in a case that “purports to challenge the timing rather than the content of a consular visa decision,” 2024 WL 3517842 at *6, the Court sees no need to do so here either. It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that defendants have a duty to take any further action with respect to their visa applications. ^[5]

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the claims of plaintiff Mehdi Jahanbakhshi are DISMISSED AS MOOT; and it is further ORDERED that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case.

DATE: May 5, 2025 ________________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge