Armah v. United States Dep't of State

1

MARGARET ARMAH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-1714 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Margaret Armah, a citizen of the United States, seeks to compel defendants, U.S. Department of State; U.S. Embassy in Accra, Ghana; and Antony Blinken, Secretary of the U.S Department of State, and Virginia E. Palmer, U.S. Ambassador of the U.S. Embassy in Accra, Ghana, in their official capacities (collectively, “Defendants”), to adjudicate the visa petition of her daughter, Tracey E Baiden, which petition was pending before defendants without decision for nearly two years at the time she initiated this lawsuit. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6, 10, 16-17, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff claims that defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of her daughter's visa application, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, id. ¶¶ 7 21-22, and have done so intentionally by applying the policies of the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”) to their review of the visa application, id. ¶¶ 24-30, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff also alleges violation of her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 34-37. 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). Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Defs.' Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 16. For the reasons explained 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

The INA allows for the issuance of immigrant visas, including for relatives of U.S. citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1), (b). A U.S. citizen seeking permanent resident status for an adult child or other family member may fill out a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (defining an “immediate relative[]” as including “children . . . of a citizen of the United States” for purposes of Form I-130 petitioners). If USCIS approves the petition, the case is forwarded to the National Visa Center (“NVC”) for processing. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(d)(3)(1). NVC serves as the visa application processing center for the U.S. Department of State (“State Department”). Id.

Following approval of the petition, the foreign relative must submit paperwork and processing fees to NVC. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.67 (outlining application fees and additional documentation that an applicant must submit to NVC to complete their application). After processing the requisite materials, NVC schedules a consular interview for the applicant at the embassy with jurisdiction over the applicant's residence. Id. § 42.62. The consular officer must issue or refuse the visa following the interview. Id. § 42.81(a).

B. Factual Background

On March 31, 2015, plaintiff filed an I-130 visa petition with USCIS on behalf of her daughter, Tracey E. Baiden. See Compl. ¶¶ 10, 13. Plaintiff intended to secure lawful permanent resident status for Ms. Baiden, who currently resides in Ghana, to enable her to join plaintiff in the United States. See id. ¶¶ 2, 11. On May 4, 2015, USCIS approved plaintiff's visa petition and transferred the petition to NVC. See id. ¶¶ 15-16. On June 17, 2020, NVC indicated that the visa petition for Ms. Baiden was “documentarily qualified” and awaiting scheduling for an interview. Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 6, ECF No. 17 (citing Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. A, Affidavit of Margaret Armah (“Armah Aff.”) ¶ 6, ECF No. 17-1).

Since June 2020, when the petition was documentarily qualified, however, NVC “has refused . . . to conduct an interview,” despite plaintiff's multiple efforts to contact the State Department about the matter. See id. at 2 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).^[1]Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, she and her daughter have been “irrevocably harmed” by the family separation, Compl. ¶ 37, particularly since April 2021, when plaintiff underwent lung mass surgery, Pl.'s Opp'n at 2-3. Two years after the procedure, plaintiff continues to require her daughter's “help with daily activities” and “care and emotional support,” and to ensure that plaintiff receives “proper medical care.” Id. (citing Armah Aff. ¶ 11).

C. Procedural History

On June 14, 2022, roughly twenty-four months after NVC's last notification stating that the visa petition for Ms. Baiden was “documentarily qualified,” plaintiff filed the instant petition with two causes of action, seeking, among other requested relief, an order “compelling Defendants to adjudicate a long-delayed immediate relative visa application.” Compl. at 2; see also id. at 78 (Request for Relief). Plaintiff maintains that defendants retain jurisdiction over her daughter's visa application and have a “non-discretionary duty to conclude agency matters” within a “reasonable time,” which duty she seeks to enforce with relief under the APA and the Mandamus Act. Id. ¶¶ 7, 20-21 (citations omitted). She also claims that defendants have unlawfully delayed her daughter's visa application pursuant to CARRP, a Department of Homeland Security program, which allegedly “intentionally delays the applications of applicants . . . from a predominantly Muslim country” “due to security concerns,” in violation of the INA. Id. ¶¶ 24-25, 31. As a result of the delay, plaintiff further claims she has suffered deprivation of her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 35-36.

On November 17, 2022, upon the joint request of the parties, this case was stayed pending resolution of plaintiff's request that USCIS maintain Ms. Baiden's case under the F2B visa category (applicable to unmarried adult children of a permanent resident) “so that the priority date” for processing Ms. Baiden's visa application “would remain current,” though Ms. Baiden's visa category had “automatically changed to” F1 (applicable to unmarried children of a U.S. citizen) when plaintiff became a naturalized citizen. Jt. Mot. to Hold Case in Abeyance at 1-3, ECF No. 12; see Min. Order (Nov. 17, 2022). On February 6, 2023, upon notification by the parties that USCIS had granted plaintiff's request to maintain Ms. Baiden's F2B visa category and that “no stipulation of dismissal will be filed at this time,” the stay was lifted and a schedule set for the filing of defendants' answer or other response to plaintiff's complaint. See Min. Order (Feb. 6, 2023); Jt. Status Rep. at 1, ECF No. 13.

On March 22, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defs.' Mot. at 1.^[2]With the filing of plaintiff's opposition, and no reply-timely or otherwise-by defendants, the pending motion is ripe for resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 757-58 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A facially plausible claim pleads facts that are not “‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” but “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)); see also Langeman v. Garland, 88 F.4th 289, 294 (D.C. Cir. 2023). In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must consider the whole complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, “even if doubtful in fact.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Courts do not, however, “assume the truth of legal conclusions . . . or ‘accept inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.'” Air Excursions LLC v. Yellen, 66 F.4th 272, 277 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and Kareem v. Haspel, 986 F.3d 859, 865-66 (D.C. Cir. 2021)). “In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim,” a court “may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice.” Marshall's Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1271-72 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Hurd v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 671, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that dismissal of the complaint is required because plaintiff's claimed delay in the adjudication of her daughter's visa is “not unreasonable as a matter of law under the factors identified in Telecommunications Research & Action Center[.]” Defs.' Mot. at 1, 14-23 (citing Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC (“TRAC”), 750 F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In addition, defendants argue that plaintiff's CARRP claims are conclusory and lack any kind of factual basis, id. at 23-25, and that the delay does not support any claimed violation of plaintiff's due process rights, id. at 25-27.^[3]Notwithstanding plaintiff's understandable frustration with the processing of her daughter's visa petition, particularly at a time when plaintiff's health circumstances would...