govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-03169-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
____________________________________ 
 ) 
PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiffs, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) Civil Action No. 24-03169 (PLF) 
 ) 
MARCO A. RUBIO,
1 ) 
Secretary of State, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
____________________________________) 
 
 
MEMORANUM OPINION 
 
 This case is before the Court on the government’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 
No. 40].2 Plaintiff Mona Sadat Sadati, a United States citizen, submitted a Form I-130 Petition 
for Alien Relative to obtain a family-sponsored immigrant visa on behalf of her father, plaintiff 
Seyed Ghasem Sadati. Compl. ¶ 53.3 In connection with Mr. Sadati’s immigrant visa 
application, he was interviewed by a consular officer, and thereafter his application was refused 
and placed in “administrative processing.” Id. ¶ 54. The plaintiffs contend that the government 
 
 1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Marco A. Rubio, 
current U.S. Secretary of State, and Stuart R. Wilson, current Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Visa Services, are “automatically substituted” as parties to this litigation. 
 
2 The documents considered by the Court in connection with the pending motion 
include: Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of 
Mandamus (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in 
Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) [Dkt. No. 40]; Plaintiffs’ Response in 
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp.”) [Dkt. No. 41]; Defendants’ Reply 
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Reply”) 
[Dkt. No. 42]; and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (“Notice”) [Dkt. No. 43]. 
3 There are only two remaining plaintiffs in this case: Mona Sadat Sadati and 
Seyed Ghasem Sadati. See Notice. 

2 
has unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld a decision on Mr. Sadati’s visa application, 
and they seek an order compelling the government to decide the application promptly. 
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the relevant 
authorities, the Court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint 
by Order on September 30, 2025 [Dkt. No. 44]. This Opinion explains the reasoning behind that 
Order. 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
 
A. Statutory Background 
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., governs 
the issuance of various types of visas to foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. 
Pursuant to the INA, the State Department has promulgated numerous regulations pertaining to 
immigrant visas. One such regulation provides that “[w]hen a visa application has been properly 
completed and executed before a consular officer in accordance with the provisions of the INA 
and the implementing regulations, the consular officer must issue the visa [or] refuse the visa 
under INA 212(a) or 221(g) or other applicable law.” 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). Section 221(g) of 
the INA, in turn, provides that if an applicant fails to establish visa eligibility, the consular 
officer “shall” refuse the application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g); see also id. § 1361 (placing the 
burden on the applicant to establish eligibility). 
The consular officer may, however, “choose to place an officially refused 
application in administrative processing,” which allows the officer to “re-open and re-adjudicate” 
the previously refused application if additional information comes to light. Karimova v. Abate 
(“Karimova”), No. 23-5178, 2024 WL 3517852, at *2 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2024) (per curiam) 
(citing 9 Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) § 306.2-2(A)(a)). “Unless and until” a consular 

3 
officer re-opens a visa application, the “application remains officially refused.” Id. “Because 
the visa application has already been officially refused, keeping the door open in administrative 
processing can only benefit, never hurt, the applicant’s entry prospects.” Id. 
Under the Mandamus Act, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 
any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or 
any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), a court may compel agency action that is “unreasonably 
delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Under Section 706(1) of the APA, however, “a delay cannot be 
unreasonable with respect to action that is not required” by law. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness 
All. (“Norton”), 542 U.S. 55, 63 n.1 (2004); see also id. at 64 (“[A] claim under [Section] 706(1) 
can proceed only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action 
that it is required to take.”). 
 
B. Factual and Procedural Background 
 
Plaintiff Mona Sadat Sadati, a United States citizen, submitted a Form I-130 
Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her father, plaintiff Seyed Ghasem Sadati, an Iranian 
national. Compl. ¶¶ 53-54. Mr. Sadati executed his immigrant visa application during an 
interview with a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on 
May 15, 2023. Id. ¶ 54. Following that interview, Mr. Sadati’s visa application was refused and 
placed in “administrative processing.” Id. To date, Mr. Sadati’s visa application remains refused 
and in administrative processing, causing the plaintiffs and their family to experience significant 
hardship. Id. ¶¶ 55. 
The plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on January 1, 2024, in the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of California. See Compl. The original plaintiff group was comprised 

4 
of one organizational plaintiff—P ARS Equality Center—and thirteen Iranian American families 
as follows: thirteen individuals who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, as well as 
twenty-four of their respective Iranian spouses, children, parents, and siblings on whose behalf 
the individuals have filed immigrant visa petitions. See id. The plaintiffs challenged the timing 
of the government’s collection of a particular form in connection with visa applications, and they 
also alleged that the government had unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld the final 
adjudication of the plaintiffs’ immigrant visa applications. See id. On November 5, 2024, Judge 
Susan Illston dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge to the timing of the form collection (Count One). 
See Dkt. No. 33. Judge Illston then severed and transferred the surviving claims of four 
plaintiffs—including Ms. and Mr. Sadati—to this judicial district. See Dkt. No. 36. In th e 
remaining counts (Counts Two to Five), the plaintiffs assert causes of action arising under both 
the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1), 706(2), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. See 
Compl. ¶¶ 167-227. On December 10, 2024, the government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant 
to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See MTD. The plaintiffs 
filed an opposition on December 24, 2024, see Opp., and the government filed a reply on 
December 31, 2024, see Reply. The Court decided the government’s motion by Order on 
September 30, 2025. 
 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
A. Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers 
authorized by the Constitution and an act of Congress. See Janko v. Gates, 741 F.3d 136, 139 
(D.C. Cir. 2014); Abulhawa v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 239 F. Supp. 3d 24, 30 
(D.D.C. 2017). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is fatal to a court’s authority to hear a case. 

5 
See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has 
jurisdiction. See Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Walen v. United 
States, 246 F. Supp. 3d 449, 452 (D.D.C. 2017). In determining whether to grant a motion to 
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must construe the complaint in the 
plaintiff’s favor and treat all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. See Attias v. CareFirst, 
Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Court “need not accept factual inferences drawn 
by plaintiffs if those inferences are not supported by facts alleged in the complaint,” and the 
Court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions. Disner v. United States, 888 F. 
Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Speelman v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 71, 73 
(D.D.C. 2006)). In determining whether a plaintiff has established jurisdiction, the Court “may 
consider materials beyond the pleadings where appropriate.” Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc. v. 
Clark, 318 F. Supp. 3d 199, 207 (D.D.C. 2018). 
 
B. Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), 
a plaintiff must plead facts that “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration 
in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although “detailed factual 
allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the “complaint 
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible 
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see Spence v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 109 F.4th 531, 539 
(D.C. Cir. 2024). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

6 
alleged.” In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213, 218 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting 
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “must accept the 
plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” 
Sanchez v. Off. of State Superintendent of Educ., 45 F.4th 388, 395 (D.C. Cir. 2022); see 
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court considers the complaint in its entirety, see Tellabs, 
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007), and construes it liberally, 
granting the plaintiff “the benefit of all inferences that can [reasonably] be derived from the facts 
alleged,” Sickle v. Torres Advanced Enter. Sols., LLC., 884 F.3d 338, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018) 
(alteration in original). The Court, however, need not accept all inferences drawn by the plaintiff 
“if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Nurriddin v. 
Bolden, 818 F.3d 751, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“While legal 
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 
allegations.”). Nor is the Court “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual 
allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 
at 555); see also Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 963 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Nor must we accept as 
true the complaint’s factual allegations insofar as they contradict exhibits to the complaint or 
matters subject to judicial notice.”). 
 
III. DISCUSSION 
In Counts Two to Five, the plaintiffs challenge the government’s alleged failure to 
timely adjudicate Mr. Sadati’s visa application, and they ask the Court to compel the government 
to decide the application promptly. See Compl. ¶¶ 167-225. The plaintiffs seek such action 
under both the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1), 706(2), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 

7 
§ 1361. See id. To prevail under either statute, the plaintiffs must make a “threshold” showing 
that the government has “failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to 
take.” Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *1 (quoting Norton, 542 U.S. 55 at 64); see Skalka v. 
Kelly, 246 F. Supp. 3d 147, 152 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The standard by which a court reviews this 
type of agency inaction is the same under both [Section] 706(1) of the APA and the Mandamus 
Act.”). Put differently, the plaintiffs must identify a discrete, nondiscretionary duty that 
obligates the government to take further action on Mr. Sadati’s visa application. See Karimova, 
2024 WL 3517852, at *1. The Court has no authority to compel a “discrete agency action that is 
not demanded by law (which includes . . . agency regulations).” Norton, 542 U.S. at 65. 
The plaintiffs have not identified a discrete, nondiscretionary duty that requires 
the government to act further on Mr. Sadati’s visa application.4 The plaintiffs point to 5 
U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1), various parts of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and 
scattered sections of the FAM as potential sources of the government’s nondiscretionary duty. 
See Opp. at 6-7, 18-20. Their arguments with respect to each provision can be dispensed with in 
short order based on this Court’s recent opinions applying the D.C. Circuit’s Karimova decision. 
See Hurtado v. Foley (“Hurtado”), Civil Action No. 24-3270 (PLF), 2025 WL 2757557, at *4 
(D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2025); Datta v. Rubio (“Datta”), Civil Action No. 24-2937 (PLF), 2025 
WL 752643, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2025). Importantly, as in each of those prior cases and 
 
4 The government argues in the alternative that the Court should dismiss the 
complaint because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes judicial review. See 
MTD at 16-19. Because the Court agrees that the plaintiffs have not identified a discrete, 
nondiscretionary duty that the government must fulfill for an already-refused visa application, 
the Court need not consider the government’s alternate argument that the plaintiffs’ claims 
should be dismissed under the consular nonreviewability doctrine. 
 

8 
Karimova itself, the plaintiffs here concede that Mr. Sadati’s visa application has been “refused” 
pursuant to Section 221(g) of the INA. See Compl. ¶ 145. 
In Karimova, a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit explained that when a 
consular officer “officially refuse[s]” a visa application pursuant to INA Section 221(g), any duty 
that the officer may have had to adjudicate the application under Section 555(b) of the APA is 
discharged. Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *4; see 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). And that is so even if 
the consular officer proceeds to place the executed visa application into administrative 
processing. See Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *4 (“Nothing in federal law speaks to the 
ability of a consul . . . to hold onto the [refused] application in case circumstances later change in 
the applicant’s favor . . . .”). Simply put, an applicant who has been issued a refusal under 
Section 221(g) has received a “decision that the law expressly authorizes as one of the allowed 
actions on a visa application,” regardless of whether the application is eventually “re-open[ed] 
and re-adjudicate[d].” Id. at *2, *4. 
The Court acknowledges that judges in this district disagree on whether the D.C. 
Circuit’s unpublished decision in Karimova is precedential. See Datta, 2025 WL 752643, at *6 
n.3 (collecting cases). This Court declines to wade into that debate and instead concludes, as it 
has in prior opinions, that the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning is persuasive. See Hurtado, 2025 
WL 2757557, at *4 (adopting Karimova’s reasoning); Datta, 2025 WL 752643, at *7 (same); 
see also Ariani v. Rubio, Civil Action No. 25-0349 (TSC), 2025 WL 3653503, at *4 (D.D.C. 
Dec. 17, 2025) (“[T]he court finds Karimova persuasive.”); Kachooee v. Allen, Civil Action 
No. 25-00139 (TNM), 2025 WL 2986451, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2025) (“Karimova is 
persuasive.”); Baradaran v. Rubio, Civil Action No. 24-2946 (DLF), 2025 WL 2506546, at *2 
(D.D.C. Sep. 2, 2025) (concluding that Karimova’s “reasoning is persuasive and applies here”); 

9 
Pour v. Rubio, Civil Action No. 25-573 (JEB), 2025 WL 2374559, at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025) 
(“Regardless of whether Karimova is actually binding, it is still a case decided by the Circuit that 
contains reasoning that the Court finds persuasive as to the APA.”); Doroodchi v. Rubio, Civil 
Action No. 24-3170 (CRC), 2025 WL 1865114, at *4 (D.D.C. July 7, 2025) (applying Karimova 
as “the considered and unanimous judgment of a D.C. Circuit panel”). Consistent with the D.C. 
Circuit’s holding in Karimova—and this Court’ s decisions in prior cases—the Court rejects the 
plaintiffs’ assertion that Section 555(b) of the APA creates a further duty to act on a refused visa 
application that has been placed in administrative processing. See Datta, 2025 WL 752643, 
at *7; Hurtado, 2025 WL 2757557, at *4. 
To be sure, in Karimova the D.C. Circuit addressed only 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), 
whereas the plaintiffs here invoke various other provisions. See Opp. at 6-7, 18-20. 
Nonetheless, the Karimova decision forecloses the plaintiffs’ arguments based on those 
provisions as well. That is because the “thrust of” the court of appeals’ holding in 
“Karimova . . . is that an INA [Section] 221(g) refusal followed by administrative processing is a 
refusal.” Rezvani v. Rubio, Civil Action No. 24-03381 (CJN), 2025 WL 1293358, at *1 (D.D.C. 
May 5, 2025); see also, e.g., Ibrahim v. Spera, Civil Action No. 23-3563 (ABJ), 2024 
WL 4103702, at *3 (D.D.C. Sep. 6, 2024) (rejecting the argument that Karimova is “confined to 
the issue of whether the APA alone created a duty for the [government] to complete 
administrative processing” because “one cannot read Karimova as saying anything other than a 
[Section] 221(g) refusal and placement in administrative processing was a conclusion”). As this 
Court has explained elsewhere, although the provisions to which the plaintiffs point clearly 
obligate the government to adjudicate Mr. Sadati’s visa application, those provisions “stop short 
of creating a duty to further adjudicate a visa application that has already been refused by a 

Passage view · GavelSight