Muthana v. Blinken

Background

Abdulmajid Taha Muthana and his biological daughter, Naseem Abdulmajid Taha Muthana, also known as Mohsin, brought the action. The plaintiffs sought review of the U.S. embassy in Djibouti’s decision not to issue Naseem an immigrant visa and to return the underlying Form I-130 petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Abdulmajid filed the family-sponsored petition in 2005. On the petition, he identified Naseem as his stepdaughter and used the name “Naseem A. Mohsin.” During a 2007 interview, he stated that Naseem was actually his biological daughter and acknowledged that he had misrepresented that fact. The petition was later terminated.

In 2018, Abdulmajid reopened the effort to sponsor Naseem. The embassy reinstated the petition and interviewed Naseem in 2019. It initially denied the visa on public-charge grounds and later cited a presidential proclamation concerning certain nationals of Yemen. In December 2020, the embassy told the plaintiffs that Naseem was ineligible for the visa category in which she had applied and that the petition had been returned to USCIS. In May 2021, the embassy explained that the biographical information on the petition was materially different from Naseem’s actual biographical information.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and Fifth Amendment due process rights. The defendants moved to dismiss, relying on the doctrine of consular non-reviewability and arguing that the visa decision was based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.

Consular non-reviewability

The court held that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability barred judicial review of the embassy’s decision. That doctrine generally prevents courts from reviewing a consular officer’s decision to grant or deny a visa.

Although the embassy returned the I-130 petition to USCIS, the court treated its finding that Naseem was “ineligible” for the visa category as an effective visa denial. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the embassy had merely suspended the application. It stated that even if the action were viewed as a suspension, it would still fall within the doctrine’s protection.

Limited constitutional review

The court discussed a narrow exception that allows limited review when a visa denial implicates a U.S. citizen’s constitutional rights. Under that exception, a court asks only whether the government gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial. If that standard is met, the court does not examine the government’s underlying exercise of discretion or balance its justification against the citizen’s constitutional interests.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Abdulmajid had a protected constitutional interest. It nevertheless concluded that the embassy had provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason by stating that the petition’s biographical information materially differed from Naseem’s actual information. The court found that this factual explanation was sufficient even though the embassy did not identify a specific statutory provision.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ bad-faith allegations. It found those allegations conclusory and said that the existence of multiple possible grounds for denying the visa did not itself show bad faith. Because the stated reason was sufficient and the bad-faith allegations were inadequate, the court declined to look further into the embassy’s discretionary decision.

Disposition

Judge Hellerstein granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court canceled the oral argument scheduled for February 8, 2022, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and ordered the case marked closed. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.