Frankford Vapor Inc. and Muhammad Bilal Khan v. Marco Rubio, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss an action challenging the delay in processing Muhammad Bilal Khan’s E-2 visa application. The court held that the visa application had already been refused under INA § 221(g), making Plaintiffs’ claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act moot. The court further concluded that, even if the claims were not moot, they were nonjusticiable and failed to identify a legally required, discrete agency action or nondiscretionary duty.

Holdings

1. A consular officer's refusal of Khan's visa application under INA § 221(g) constituted a final adjudication for purposes of Plaintiffs' requested relief, even though additional administrative processing continued. Because the court could not compel Defendants to conclude processing and issue another final decision on an application already refused, Plaintiffs' unreasonable-delay claims were moot.
2. Because Plaintiffs' claims for unreasonable delay were moot, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the action.
3. Even if the claims were not moot, Plaintiffs failed to state claims under the APA or the Mandamus Act because they did not identify a legally required, discrete agency action that Defendants failed to perform or a nondiscretionary duty owed to Plaintiffs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs' claims seeking an order compelling adjudication of Khan's visa application were moot because the application had already been refused under INA § 221(g).
2. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims under Article III, the APA, and the Mandamus Act.
3. Whether, alternatively, Plaintiffs stated plausible claims under the APA or Mandamus Act by identifying a legally required, discrete agency action or a nondiscretionary duty.
4. Whether Plaintiffs could obtain declaratory or injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act based on the alleged delay in visa processing.

Disposition

dismissed