Najafi v. Pompeo

Background

The plaintiffs were U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, referred to as “Petitioner Plaintiffs,” and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées, referred to as “Beneficiary Plaintiffs.” The Beneficiary Plaintiffs had fulfilled the requirements for family-based or fiancée-based visas, but their visa applications had been denied under Presidential Proclamation 9645, which restricted entry from Iran and other countries while allowing case-by-case waivers.

The plaintiffs alleged that a Department of State group called the “PP 9645 Brain Trust” had created private guidance requiring consular officers to obtain concurrence from consular managers, visa chiefs, and the Visa Office before final waiver decisions. They alleged that this practice improperly transferred authority from individual consular officers and caused unreasonable delays.

The complaint asserted four types of claims: an Administrative Procedure Act claim based on unreasonable delay; an Administrative Procedure Act claim challenging the alleged transfer of consular-officer authority; a mandamus claim seeking a court order requiring government action; and a procedural due-process claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court generally had to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true but required enough facts to make the requested relief legally plausible.

Unreasonable-delay claim. The court held that the unreasonable-delay claim was not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the court had previously determined that Presidential Proclamation 9645 could be subject to judicial review, the court concluded that review of agency action under an executive order requires an objective standard, or “law to apply.” The proclamation contained no objective standard governing how quickly waiver applications had to be decided. The court therefore dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Challenge to consular-officer authority. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had to connect the alleged transfer of authority to an unreasonable delay. The court explained that this claim challenged whether giving authority to non-consular officers violated the proclamation, regardless of any resulting delay. However, the plaintiffs still had to allege an injury caused by that practice to establish standing, meaning the right to bring the claim in court. The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege such an injury and dismissed the claim. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege the additional facts about non-government entities that plaintiffs mentioned at the hearing. This claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

Procedural due process. To state a procedural due-process claim, the plaintiffs had to identify a protected liberty or property interest and show that the government denied adequate procedural protections. The court found that the plaintiffs had not identified such an interest. The Beneficiary Plaintiffs conceded at the hearing that the law did not support their due-process claim. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ general references to property, life, family integrity, security, and freedom from discrimination were too conclusory. It further stated that the cited family interests did not create a fundamental right to reside in the United States based on a family member’s citizenship or lawful-permanent-resident status, and that unadmitted, nonresident aliens do not have a constitutional right to enter the country. The Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ due-process claims were dismissed with prejudice. The claim was dismissed with leave to amend as to the Petitioner Plaintiffs.

Mandamus. Mandamus is an extraordinary court remedy available only when other avenues of relief have been exhausted and the defendant owes a clear, nondiscretionary duty. Because the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a claim or identified an action the agency was required to take, the court dismissed the mandamus claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Administrative Procedure Act claim based on unreasonable delay and the Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ due-process claims were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order.