Mostafavi v. Rubio

Background

Seyed Hakhamanesh Mostafavi and Afsaneh Behbahani sued Marco Rubio, Nancy Abella, and unnamed consular officials in their official capacities. They asserted claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking an order requiring the Government to complete adjudication of Behbahani’s IR-5 immigrant-visa application.

Behbahani attended a visa interview on October 1, 2024. A consular officer issued a notice under § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act stating that additional administrative processing was required and directing her to submit Form DS-5535. She submitted that form the same day. The complaint alleged that more than seven months then passed without further action. The electronic visa system listed the application as “refused” but also stated that Behbahani would receive another adjudication after administrative processing was complete.

Government’s motion to dismiss

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s power to hear a case, while Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally plausible claim.

The Government argued that the claims were moot because the visa application had already been adjudicated and refused; that consular nonreviewability barred the action; that the APA claims lacked a required agency action that had been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; that mandamus relief was unavailable; and that the request for declaratory relief could not proceed.

Mootness and consular nonreviewability

The court denied the motion insofar as it relied on mootness. It held that the § 221(g) refusal did not necessarily constitute a final adjudication because the application remained in administrative processing and the electronic visa system said another adjudication would occur after that processing was complete. The court concluded that Behbahani retained a personal stake because Plaintiffs sought a further decision on the application.

The court also declined to apply consular nonreviewability to bar the claims. It distinguished reviewing the substance of a consular officer’s visa decision from requiring further action on an application that remains under consideration. The court stated that Plaintiffs were seeking further adjudication, not review of the substance of the refusal. It therefore denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal on consular-nonreviewability grounds.

APA claims

The court denied the motion insofar as the Government argued that no further agency action remained subject to review. It held that the § 221(g) refusal did not complete the visa adjudication and that the Government continued to have a duty to adjudicate the application. The court did not decide Plaintiffs’ alternative argument concerning a separate regulation because it found the continuing duty under the relevant statutes sufficient.

The court then applied the six-factor standard used for claims that an agency has unreasonably delayed action. The court found that the first two factors favored the Government because Congress had not set a deadline and the alleged delay—measured from the possible starting dates identified in the opinion—fell within a range that courts commonly decline to treat as unreasonable.

The third and fifth factors favored Plaintiffs because the complaint alleged effects on Behbahani’s health and welfare and on her family. The fourth factor favored the Government because the requested relief would effectively prioritize Behbahani’s application over competing applications. The sixth factor was neutral because Plaintiffs did not allege bad faith or other improper conduct by the Government.

Balancing the factors, the court held that the Government was obligated to issue a final decision on the application but that the delay alleged in the complaint was not unreasonable. The court therefore granted the motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ APA claims.

Mandamus and declaratory relief

The court granted the motion with respect to the Mandamus Act claim. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel a government official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty when no other adequate remedy is available. The court held that the APA provided an adequate alternative avenue for relief, so Plaintiffs could not satisfy the requirements for mandamus. It also noted that the mandamus claim duplicated the APA claim.

The court dismissed the request for declaratory relief because the APA and Mandamus Act claims had been dismissed and the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently provide federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Government’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal based on mootness, consular nonreviewability, or the absence of further agency action subject to APA review. The court granted the motion with respect to the APA claims because the delay was not unreasonable and with respect to the Mandamus Act claim. The action was dismissed without prejudice to a future action if Behbahani’s visa application remained pending for a period that constituted unreasonable delay. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the action.