UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) ALI MORADI et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 24-cv-02569 (APM) MARCO RUBIO,1 ) in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of State, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Ali Moradi, Niloufar Ghamari, Ali Kheirkhah Barzoki, and Ghazaleh Khalili

Tanha,2 all citizens and residents of Iran, seek F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant visas to pursue study or

research at various academic institutions in the United States. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–2, 18–19,

21–22. According to Plaintiffs, their F-1 or J-1 visa applications were properly filed but were

refused and placed in administrative processing under the Immigration and National Act § 221(g)

where they have been for over nine months with no action. See id. Contending that Defendants’

failure to act constitutes a violation of law, id. ¶¶ 120–158, Plaintiffs ask the court to compel

agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and to issue a writ of

mandamus.

Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Karimova

v. Abate, No. 23-5178,

(D.C. Cir. July 24, 2024), incontrovertibly holds that a

1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court substitutes the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendant in place of his predecessor in office. 2 Claims of Fereshteh Shafiepour were voluntarily dismissed on September 4, 2025. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of One Plaintiff, ECF No. 15. consular officer has no duty to act on a visa application held in administrative processing, and

(2) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. See Defs.’ Mot. to

Dismiss, ECF No. 19 [hereinafter Defs.’ Mot.], at 6–14.

As to the first ground, the court does not read Karimova so broadly. Karimova held only

that “Section 555(b) [of the APA]—and only Section 555(b)” does not place a “clear, non-

discretionary duty” on a consular officer to “re-adjudicate [an] already-refused application.”

, at *3. It offered no opinion as to whether any other source of law creates a

nondiscretionary duty as to a visa application placed in administrative processing. Cf. Nikjooy v.

Rubio, No. 24-cv-1989 (LLA),

, at *6–8 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2025). Plaintiffs

here do rely on § 555(b), see Compl. ¶¶ 39, 106, but not exclusively like the plaintiff in Karimova.

They also assert that

(e) and other sources of law3 require a consular officer to act

on their applications. See id. ¶¶ 101, 111, 129, 152;

(e) (“The application for a

nonimmigrant visa or other documentation as a nonimmigrant shall be disposed of as may be by

regulations prescribed.”). Defendants, however, grapple with none of these other legal grounds.

See Defs.’ Mot. at 6–11. So, even if Karimova disposes of § 555 as the basis for a discrete legal

duty, Defendants’ failure to challenge any other cited source of law means that dismissal based on

the lack of a discrete legal duty is not warranted.

As to the defense of consular nonreviewability, courts in this District repeatedly have held

that inaction on a visa application stuck in administrative processing under § 221(g) is not shielded

from review under that doctrine. See, e.g., Al-Ghawary v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

, 11 (D.D.C. 2022); Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful

Serv. to the U.S. v. Kerry,

(D.D.C. 2016). And Karimova did not clearly

3 Plaintiff also cites

(a) and 9 FAM 403.7-3, 403.10-2(A). Compl. ¶¶ 111, 129, 152.

2 rule on the applicability of consular nonreviewability to visa applications in administrative

processing. See Karimova,

, at *6; Thein v. Trump, No. 25-cv-2369 (SLS),

, at *8–10 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2025).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19, is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

3