Shahrgan v. U.S. Department of State

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3462
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAHRYAR SHAHRGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03462 (CJN)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Shahryar Shahrgan initiated this lawsuit to compel the final adjudication of his

visa application, which he alleged had remained in an indeterminate “administrative processing”

status since February 2024. ECF No. 3 (Compl.) at 1 & ¶¶ 14, 20. In February 2025, however,

the government moved to dismiss Shahrgan’s complaint as moot, on the grounds that a consular

officer had re-adjudicated Shahrgan’s visa application and denied it pursuant to Sections

212(a)(3)(B) and 214(b) of the INA. ECF No. 8 (Mot.) at 1–2. As support for that statement, the

government adduced a screenshot from the publicly available Visa Status Check system, which

reflects that Shahrgan’s visa case has recently been updated and that the status of his visa is

“refused.” Id. at 2.

Shahrgan did not respond to the government’s motion to dismiss within the time afforded

him to do so by Local Civil Rule 7(b). Nor did Shahrgan respond to the government’s motion to

dismiss by the extended deadline that the Court sua sponte set—which was more than three months

after the government filed its motion to dismiss. See Min. Order of Apr. 18, 2025. Indeed,

Shahrgan has not participated in this litigation in any way since filing his complaint in December

2024. The Court will therefore treat the government’s motion to dismiss as conceded. See LCvR

1 7(b); Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294–95 (D.C. Cir. 2004). But even if Shahrgan

had opposed the government’s motion, it is difficult to imagine any argument he could have raised

to defeat the clear conclusion that the Court lacks jurisdiction here. Because Shahrgan has received

the final adjudication of his visa application that he sought, “there is ‘no meaningful relief’ the

Court can grant” him. 1 Sayad v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2022 WL 4130840, at *2

(D.D.C. 2022) (quoting McBryde v. Comm. to Rev., 264 F.3d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2001)) (dismissing

as moot suit to compel visa adjudication where consular officer issued a final decision on plaintiff’s

application).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; and it

is further

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case.

DATE: May 5, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

1 In any event, a visa applicant whose application is refused and then placed into administrative processing—as Shahrgan’s was, see Compl. ¶ 14—has still “received the ‘refused’ decision that the law expressly authorizes as one of the allowed actions on a visa application.” Karimova v. Abate, 2024 WL 3517852, at *4 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (citing 22 C.F.R. § 42.81; 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)). So even if Shahrgan’s visa application had not been re-adjudicated, he would have been unable to show that consular officers committed a “transparent violation of a clear duty to act,” as required to warrant relief under the APA or the Mandamus Act. Id. at *1 (alteration omitted); see Amjad v. Schofer, 2024 WL 4416984, at *1 (D.D.C. 2024) (dismissing complaint on this basis). 2