Matoori Berimiasl v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3284
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) EHSAN MATOORI ) BERIMIASL, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 24-cv-3284 (APM) ) PAMELA J. BONDI ) Attorney General, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Ehsan Matoori Berimiasl is a U.S. citizen who seeks immigrant visas for his

parents, Plaintiffs Ahmad Matoori Berimiasl and Kobra Alaleh (“Parent Applicants”). Compl.,

ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1–2. A consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed

the Parent Applicants on June 5, 2023, but they were advised “that their visa applications had been

placed in administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA).” Id. ¶¶ 9–10. As of November 20, 2024, the date on which Plaintiffs filed suit, their visa

applications remained in administrative processing and were classified as “refused.” Id. ¶¶ 12–13

(alleging that the present status of Plaintiffs’ applications, as reported on the State Department’s

website, is “refused for administrative processing”). Plaintiffs assert various claims, but at the

heart of each is the contention that Defendants have failed to timely deliver a final adjudication of

their visa applications. See id. at 9–18 (asserting claims under Sections 555(b), 706(1), and 706(2)

of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act). They ask the court to issue

an order compelling Defendants to act on their applications. See id. at 18. The court cannot do so. The D.C. Circuit in Karimova v. Abate, No. 23-cv-5178, 2024 WL

3517852 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2024), held that Section 555(b) of the APA does not place a “crystal-

clear legal duty” on a consular officer to act on a visa application that, as here, is refused and

placed in administrative processing. See id. at *3–4 (quoting In re Center for Biological Diversity,

53 F.4th 665, 670 (D.C. Cir. 2022)); Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs identify no source of law other than

§ 555(b) for a “crystal-clear legal duty,” see Compl. ¶ 1 (alleging that “[t]he adjudication of an

immigrant visa application is a ministerial, nondiscretionary task that Defendants must perform

within a reasonable period of time. 5 U.S.C. § 555(b)”), and without one, they cannot maintain a

claim to compel agency action or for mandamus relief. See In re Center for Biological Diversity,

53 F.4th at 670 (Mandamus Act); Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 568 F.3d 225, 227

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that a plaintiff must “identify a legally required, discrete act that the

[agency] has failed to perform” as a “threshold requirement for a § 706 failure-to-act claim”).

Karimova therefore requires the court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs counter that, because Karimova is unpublished, it has “little precedential

authority.” Pls.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5 [hereinafter Pls.’ Opp’n], at

7. The court acknowledges that some judges in this District have not followed Karimova for that

reason, see Aramnahad v. Rubio, No. 24-cv-1817-MAU, 2025 WL 973483, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,

2025) (citing cases), but this court joins those that believe Karimova’s persuasive force cannot be

so easily cast aside, see, e.g., Pour v. Rubio, No. 25-cv-573 (JEB), 2025 WL 2374559, at *5

(D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025); Rahiminejad v. Rubio, No. 24-cv-3495 (CRC), 2025 WL 2144092, at *2

(D.D.C. July 29, 2025). Plaintiffs offer no reason why Karimova was wrongly decided,

Pls.’ Opp’n at 6–7, and they supply no basis to distinguish it from this case. Therefore, consistent

2 with Karimova, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the violation of a “crystal-

clear legal duty” that can form the basis of their APA and Mandamus Act claims.

For the forgoing reasons, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4.

A final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: September 23, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge