UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MUHAMMAD FAISAL AMJAD,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-1773 (CJN)

ANDREW SCHOFER, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Muhammad Faisal Amjad, a Pakistani citizen, seeks to compel the conclusive adjudication

of his immigrant visa application, of which his wife and son are derivative beneficiaries. ECF No.

1 (“Pet.”). The government moves to dismiss. ECF No. 6 (“Mot.”). For the reasons explained

below, the Court will grant the motion.

Under both the APA and the Mandamus Act, district courts can compel agency action “only

where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to

take.” Karimova v. Abate, No. 23-5178,

, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2024) (per

curiam) (quoting Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness All.,

(2004)). As relevant

here, when a visa applicant “execute[s]” his application “by bringing the required paperwork to an

in-person interview with a consular officer,” “the consular officer—by regulation—must issue or

refuse the visa.” 1

(citing 9 Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) § 504.1-3(a), (g);

Upon order of the Secretary of State, consular officers may also “‘discontinue granting immigrant visas’ from specified countries during certain diplomatic disputes.” Karimova,

, at *1 n.2 (quoting

(d)); see also

(a). No such order is at issue in this case. 42.81(a)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Amjad argues that consular

officers at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan impermissibly delayed in fulfilling that obligation

because, after refusing his visa application, they placed it into a status called “administrative

processing.” Pet. ¶¶ 15–17; ECF No. 7 (“Opp.”) at 6. Administrative processing permits consular

officers to “re-open and re-adjudicate” an applicant’s closed case at a later date, based on new

information from the applicant or other sources. Karimova,

at *2 (citing 9

FAM §§ 306.2-2(A)(a), (A)(a)(2)). In Amjad’s view, the indefinite nature of that status amounts

to an unreasonable delay in the final adjudication of his visa application that warrants relief under

the APA or the Mandamus Act. See Pet. ¶¶ 13–34; Opp. at 6–7.

Yet, as the Court of Appeals recently explained, a visa applicant whose application is

refused and then placed into administrative processing has still “received the ‘refused’ decision

that the law expressly authorizes as one of the allowed actions on a visa application.” Karimova,

at *4 (citing

;

(g)). “Nothing in federal law

speaks to the ability of a consul, after making that decision, to hold onto the application in case

circumstances later change in the applicant’s favor, thereby saving the applicant the time and cost

of filing a whole new visa application.”

Amjad thus cannot show that consular officers

“committed a transparent violation of a clear duty to act” by placing his refused visa application

in administrative processing—regardless of how long his application remains subject to such

processing.

at *1 (quoting In re Core Communications, Inc.,

(D.C. Cir.

2008)) (internal alteration omitted). The Court will accordingly dismiss Amjad’s complaint. 2

2 The Court need not address whether Amjad’s claims separately fail under the consular non-reviewability doctrine, which “shields a consular officer’s decision to issue or withhold a visa from judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise.” Baan Rao Thai Rest. v. Pompeo,

(D.C. Cir. 2021). It is hereby

ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED; and it

is further

ORDERED that Amjad’s claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This is a final and appealable order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case.

DATE: October 4, 2024 ______________________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge