Ali v. Sanders

1

AMNA MOHAMMAD ALI, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT P. SANDERS et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-3595 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

August 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Amna Mohammad Ali, a citizen of Canada, seeks to compel defendants Robert P. Sanders, Consul General of the U.S Consulate General in Montreal, Marybeth Turner, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Canada, and Antony Blinken Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, in their official capacities (collectively, “Defendants”), to adjudicate her nonimmigrant visa application, which had been in administrative processing for nearly six months at the time plaintiff initiated this lawsuit. See Compl. ¶¶ 10-13, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims that defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of her visa application, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C § 1361. Id. ¶¶ 24-35. Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.' Mot.”) ECF No. 7. For the reasons below, defendants' motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A review of the statutory and regulatory background underlying the claims is below, followed by a summary of the factual and procedural history of this case.

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

A noncitizen who “is the fiancee ... of a citizen of the United States . . . and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission” may be eligible for a K-l, or “fiance(e),” visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(i). Recipients of a nonimmigrant visa may enter the United States for the sole purposes of marrying the citizen fiancee and applying for permanent residency. Id.', see also U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, Nonimmigrant Visa for a Fianc(e)e (K-l), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/nonimmigrant-visa-for-a-fiance-k-l.html (last visited Aug. 25,2024).^[1]

To obtain a K-l visa, the non-citizen's American fiance must first submit a Form I-129F to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d)(1); see also USCIS, I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiance(e), https://www.uscis.gov/i-129f (last updated Aug. 1, 2024). If USCIS approves the Form I-129F, it is forwarded to the Department of State's National Visa Center (“NVC”). See USCIS, Visas for Fianc(e)es of U.S. Citizens, https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for-fiancees-of-us-citizens (last updated Mar. 23, 2018). The NVC sends the Form to the “U.S. Embassy or consulate where [the noncitizen] fiance(e) will apply for a K-l nonimmigrant visa,” which is usually where the noncitizen fiance(e) lives. Id. The noncitizen thereafter submits a “properly completed and executed” K-l visa application to the relevant Embassy or Consulate, 22 C.F.R. § 41.121, and sits for an interview with a consular officer, see USCIS, Visas for Fianc(e)es of U.S. Citizens. Following consideration of the visa application and interview with the noncitizen fiance, “the consular officer must issue the visa, refuse the visa, or, pursuant to an outstanding order . . . discontinue granting the visa.” 22 C.F.R. § 41.121(a).

“No visa or other documentation shall be issued ... if (1) it appears to the consular officer . . . that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa . . . under section 1182 of this title, or any other provision of law, (2) the application fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter, or the regulations issued thereunder, or (3) the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 1182 of this title, or any other provision of law[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). A “refusal may be overcome ... in two instances: when additional evidence is presented, or administrative processing is completed.” 9 FAM § 306.2-2(A)(a) (capitalization omitted). As to the former, “[w]hen the applicant has presented additional evidence to attempt to overcome a prior refusal,” a consular officer “re-open[s] and re-adjudicate[s] the case by overcoming the prior INA 221(g) refusal and determining whether the applicant is eligible for a visa.” Id. § 306.2-2(A)(a)(1). A “prior INA 221(g) refusal entered for administrative processing” may also be overcome if the consular officer “determine[s] administrative processing is completed” and receives the additional “needed information.” Id. § 306.2-2(A)(a)(2)(a).

B. Factual Background

In October 2021, Mohamed Anees Ahmed, a U.S. citizen, submitted a Form 1-129 petition with USCIS on behalf of his fiancee and the plaintiff in this action, Amna Mohammad Ali, a “citizen and resident of Canada.” Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 10.^[2] USCIS approved the petition on January 21, 2023. Id. ¶¶ 3, 17-18; see also Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, Att. 1, Decl. of Samuel W. McDonald (“McDonald Deci.”) ¶ 4, U.S. State Dep't Attorney-Adviser, ECF No. 7-1. Following an interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal on June 12, 2023, plaintiff was informed that her visa application had been “refus[ed]” and “placed in administrative processing,” Compl. ¶¶ 20-20, pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g); Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, Att. 1, McDonald Deci. ¶ 7. Despite numerous inquiries since that date, plaintiff has received no meaningful response or timeline for the processing of her visa application. Compl. ¶ 23.

As of July 2, 2024, plaintiffs application for a nonimmigrant visa to the United States appears to have been refused, see U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, Visa Status Check, https://ceac.state.gov/CEACStatTracker/Status.aspx; Compl. ¶ 17 (identifying plaintiffs NVC visa application number), though the same page of the State Department's website suggests that plaintiffs application remains subject to additional administrative processing before a final decision is rendered, see Visa Status Check (“If you were informed by the consular officer that your case was refused for administrative processing, your case will remain refused while undergoing such processing. You will receive another adjudication once such processing is complete.”).

Plaintiff alleges that this delay in receiving a final decision on her nonimmigrant visa application has caused her “significant personal, emotional, and financial hardship” that has made it “challenging” for her “to manage her day-to-day tasks and maintain focus at work.” Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8. Plaintiff contends that she and her fiance “had to postpone their wedding and family plans,” “have not been able to commit to buying a home or deciding where to live,” and have remained “concerned about the limited likelihood of starting a family” given “the fertility challenges linked to advanced maternal age.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff further alleges that she and her fiance are “facing financial hardship due to the delay,” with both “manag[ing] separate living expenses in different countries” and spending $10,000 on travel expenses “since the delay began.” Id. ¶ 9.

C. Procedural History

On December 4, 2023, just under six months after plaintiff's visa application was placed in “administrative processing,” plaintiff filed a two-count complaint seeking to compel defendants to adjudicate her visa application. Compl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff maintains that defendants retain jurisdiction over her visa application and have a “nondiscretionary duty to review and adjudicate [her] visa application,” id. ¶ 25, which duty she seeks to enforce with relief under the APA and the Mandamus Act, see id. ¶¶ 24-35. In her prayer for relief, plaintiff seeks the adjudication of her visa application “within fifteen (15) calendar days of this [Court's] order or as soon as reasonably possible,” attorney's fees and costs, and “such other and further relief as may be appropriate.” Id. ¶36.

On February 5, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Defs.' Mot. at 1, which motion plaintiff opposes, see Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 8. This motion is now ripe for resolution. See Defs.' Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.' Reply”), ECF No. 9.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

“[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019) (citation omitted), “possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (citation omitted). “[F]orbidden. . . from acting beyond [their] authority,” NetworkIP, LLC v. Fed. Commc 'n Comm'n, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted), federal courts thus “have an affirmative obligation to consider whether the constitutional and statutory authority exist for us to hear each dispute,” James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Absent subject-matter jurisdiction, a case must be dismissed. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court “assume[s] that the complaint states a valid legal claim,” Huron v. Cobert, 809 F.3d 1274 1278 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing Info. Handling Servs., Inc. v. Def. Automated Printing Servs., 338 F.3d 1024, 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2003)), and must “accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the...