Polyashov v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2820
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SERGEY POLYASHOV, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 24-2820 (PLF)

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

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On December 9, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]. See Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5]. Defendants’ motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for decision. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 6]; Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9]. Plaintiffs allege that consular officers interviewed them, refused their visas pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g), and placed their visa applications in “administrative processing.” See Compl. 56. Plaintiffs

now challenge defendants’ failure to finally adjudicate plaintiffs’ visa applications within a

; Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Marco A. Rubio, current U.S. Secretary of State, and Monte Hawkins, current Director of the National Vetting Center within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are “automatically substituted” as parties to this litigation. reasonable time, and allege causes of action arising under both the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2), 555(b), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. See Compl. {fj 93-127.

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. 5] is GRANTED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [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: a\ 30a