Kapoor v. Blinken

Background

Shreya Kapoor, a United States citizen, filed immigrant visa applications for her parents, Yash Pal Garg and Reva Garg. The applications were assigned to the Mumbai, India, processing post. Reva’s application was filed on May 13, 2020, and became documentarily complete on July 21, 2020. Yash’s application was filed on June 8, 2020, and became documentarily complete on August 3, 2020. Neither had been scheduled for a visa interview when the case was considered.

The National Visa Center schedules interviews after an application is documentarily complete. When demand exceeds a post’s capacity, applications are generally scheduled based on the date they became documentarily complete. The State Department suspended routine visa services in March 2020 and resumed them in phases beginning in July 2020. The pandemic reduced staffing and the number of people who could safely be present at posts. Mumbai also had to reschedule canceled interviews, suspend services again in April 2021, and address a substantial backlog.

A presidential proclamation in effect from April 22, 2020, through February 24, 2021, restricted issuance of several immigrant visa categories, including the IR-5 category applicable to Yash and Reva. The State Department classified immediate-relative visa applications in Tier Two of its priority system. The opinion states that Reva and Yash would be scheduled ahead of later-filed IR-5 applications at Mumbai, but they had not yet received interview dates.

Claims and Motion

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought an order requiring the Secretary of State and those acting under him to complete all steps needed to adjudicate the applications, including background checks and interviews, within 21 days of the order.

The Secretary moved for summary judgment, arguing that the delay was not unreasonable, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of the backlog. Summary judgment is granted when the undisputed record shows that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery. The court treated that request as an informal motion for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and denied it because the plaintiffs had not made the required showing that additional discovery was needed to oppose summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court evaluated the delay under the six factors from Telecommunications Research & Action Center, commonly called the TRAC factors. These factors examine whether the delay follows a reasonable explanation, whether Congress set a timetable, the interests harmed by the delay, the effect of moving the applicants ahead of others, and whether there was improper conduct.

The first factor, the rule of reason, favored the defendant. The court found that the delay had an identifiable explanation: pandemic-related limits, the backlog of immigrant visa applicants, the need to reschedule canceled interviews, the interruption of services at Mumbai, and the effect of the presidential proclamation. The court also relied on decisions finding that similar or longer immigration-processing delays were not unreasonable.

The second factor was neutral. The court concluded that the statutes and State Department manual provisions cited by the plaintiffs expressed policy preferences but did not establish a legally binding timetable for adjudicating these immigrant visa applications.

The third and fifth factors favored the plaintiffs. The court recognized the emotional harm caused by prolonged family separation and considered the hardship described in Shreya Kapoor’s declaration, including the effect of Yash’s diagnosis of Acute Viral Encephalitis, which required hospitalization and surgery.

The fourth factor favored the defendant. The requested order would have moved Yash and Reva to the front of the interview queue, ahead of applicants with higher priority and applicants whose applications had become documentarily complete earlier. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown why their applications should be processed immediately while similarly situated applicants waited.

The sixth factor was neutral because the plaintiffs had not alleged improper conduct.

Disposition

The court found that the first and fourth factors, which it said generally receive the most weight, outweighed the third and fifth factors favoring the plaintiffs. It held that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on the TRAC factors and the undisputed facts. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The court also DENIED the plaintiffs’ informal request for additional discovery and stated that it would issue judgment for the defendant simultaneously with the order.