Abdi v. Flake

Background

Nurudiin Mohamud Abdi, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 petition for his wife, Faiza Abdirahman Mohamed Dadle, who is a citizen of Somalia. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petition on May 2, 2023. Abdi and Dadle then submitted an immigrant-visa application. The National Visa Center confirmed that it had received the fees, forms, and documents required before scheduling a consular interview and said it would work with the embassy in Ankara, Türkiye, to schedule the interview.

The complaint alleged that approximately fifteen months passed without the embassy scheduling Dadle’s interview. Abdi sued Jeffry Flake and Antony J. Blinken under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a court order requiring the government to act. The court treated the Administrative Procedure Act claim and the request for such an order—called mandamus—as together presenting an immigration-delay claim.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to act within a reasonable time and allows a court to require action that an agency has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The court explained that it could require only a specific agency action that the agency was required to take.

The court evaluated the alleged delay using six factors commonly called the TRAC factors. Among other things, those factors consider whether the timing followed a reasonable system, whether expediting one application would interfere with higher or competing priorities, and the nature of the interests harmed by delay.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the complaint did not allege enough facts to establish either the first or fourth TRAC factor. For the first factor, the court found persuasive decisions holding that processing applications and scheduling interviews in the order received—a first-in, first-out system—can qualify as a reasonable method for managing applications. The complaint did not allege that the defendants had failed to follow the Foreign Affairs Manual’s stated process.

For the fourth factor, the court reasoned that ordering the government to prioritize Dadle’s application could cause her to move ahead of other applicants who were waiting. The complaint did not allege that Dadle’s application had already been reviewed and was ready for an interview. The court also declined to consider additional facts Abdi raised in his opposition brief because facts omitted from the complaint cannot be added through briefing on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Defendants Jeffry Flake’s and Antony J. Blinken’s Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed Plaintiff Nurudiin Mohamud Abdi’s Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, and ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.