Galic v. Noem

Background

Kristijan Galic applied for an F-1 student visa at the United States Embassy in Zagreb after being accepted into a postgraduate legal studies program at Fordham University School of Law. A consular officer found him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) because of a Croatian conviction involving his 2019 tax return. The Department of State agreed that he was ineligible for a student visa but reported that the consular officer had recommended and submitted a waiver request.

Galic later submitted a letter supporting the waiver request. On July 8, 2025, the consular section in Zagreb rescinded the waiver request, and the consular officer denied Galic’s visa application. Galic’s amended complaint sought, among other relief, reversal of the waiver rescission, reversal of the visa denial, and a declaration that his tax conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. He asserted claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Motion and Analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Galic’s counsel obtained an extension of the response deadline, but Galic filed no opposition. After giving him another deadline and warning that the motion would be treated as unopposed, the court deemed the motion unopposed.

The court nevertheless explained that failure to oppose did not automatically require dismissal. It independently assumed the truth of the complaint’s factual allegations and examined only whether those allegations were legally sufficient.

The court applied the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. That doctrine generally makes an executive officer’s decision to admit or exclude a noncitizen final and prevents courts from reviewing a consular officer’s visa-denial decision. The court determined that, despite Galic’s description of his claims as procedural, the requested relief directly challenged the visa denial, the rescission of the waiver recommendation, and the officer’s reasons for denying the visa.

The court also rejected Galic’s reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act, explaining that those laws do not create a general exception to consular nonreviewability. It found no relevance in his references to 8 U.S.C. § 1447, concerning hearings on naturalization applications, or 28 U.S.C. § 1337, concerning jurisdiction over actions arising under laws regulating commerce and trade. Because the other claims failed, the court also concluded that Galic could not pursue a declaratory judgment without an underlying federal cause of action.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to close the motion and the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.