Rajabi v. Blinken

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1968
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAZIAR RAJABI, Plaintiff,

Vv. Civil Action No. 24-1968 (PLF) MARCO A. RUBIO,! Secretary of State, ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On September 3, 2024, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]. See Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5]. Defendant’s motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for decision. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 7]; Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 8]. Plaintiff alleges that a consular officer interviewed plaintiff, refused his visa application 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. {ff 45, 53. Plaintiff now challenges defendant’s failure to finally adjudicate plaintiffs visa application within a reasonable time, and alleges 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. §¥] 85-119.

l Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Marco A. Rubio, current U.S. Secretary of State, is “automatically substituted” as a party to this litigation. 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 plaintiff's claims. The Court therefore will grant

defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s 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.

O24 ZAAni-

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

DATE: a\ je haw