Pars Equity Center v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3169
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs,

V. Civil Action No. 24-3169 (PLF)

MARCO A. RUBIO, ! Secretary of State, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On December 10, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Compl.’’) [Dkt. No. 1]. See Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 40]. Defendants’ motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for decision. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 41]; Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 42].? Plaintiffs allege that a consular officer interviewed plaintiff Seyed Sadati, refused his visa pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and placed his application in “administrative processing.” See Compl. ¥] 53, 54.

Plaintiffs now challenge defendants’ failure to finally adjudicate Mr. Sadati’s application within

l 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.

There are only two remaining plaintiffs in this case: Mona Sadat Sadati and Seyed Ghasem Sadati. See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [Dkt. No. 43]. a reasonable time, and allege causes of action arising under the APA, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 706(1), 706(2), 555(b), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. See Compl. ff 160-227. In two recent opinions, this Court rejected visa applicants’ materially identical

claims under the APA and the Mandamus Act, finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel

the government to further adjudicate a visa application after the visa has been officially “refused”

pursuant to Section 221(g) of the INA. See Datta v. Rubio (“Datta”), Civil Action No. 24-2937

(PLF), 2025 WL 752643 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2025); Robles Hurtado v. Foley (“Hurtado”), Civil

Action No. 24-3270 (PLF), 2025 WL 2757557 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2025). The Court’s rulings in

Datta and Hurtado are dispositive of plaintiffs’ claims. The Court therefore will grant

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 40] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This is a final appealable order. See FED. R. App. P. 4(a). An Opinion consistent with this Order will follow in due course.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

DATE: 4|30|a>