Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Peyman Lashkari, a U.S. citizen, filed approved Form I-130 petitions for his Iranian-citizen parents. His father, Ahmad Lashkari, and his mother were interviewed on October 31, 2024, and told their cases would undergo administrative processing under INA § 221(g). The mother received a visa on November 7, 2024, but the father's application stalled, and the two men sued in November 2025 to compel adjudication. These facts come from the first amended complaint and were taken as true.
In June 2025 the President issued Proclamation 10949 under INA § 212(f), suspending entry of nationals of several countries, including Iran, and the State Department announced a “No Visa Policy” requiring visa refusals for covered applicants. Proclamation 10998, issued in December 2025, expanded the ban and removed exemptions, including one for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. In January 2026 the embassy emailed a refusal under § 212(f) stating the decision could not be appealed. The court had earlier ruled the § 221(g) refusal was not final and allowed an amended complaint addressing the § 212(f) refusal. The seven claims include nondelegation and separation of powers, two APA challenges to the No Visa Policy, APA withholding and delay claims, and a Mandamus Act claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the first claim. Section 212(f) supplies an intelligible principle, as shown by Trump v. Hawaii's discussion of its textual limits and by several district court decisions rejecting the same argument about Proclamation 10949. The separation-of-powers theory had no independent argument and fit poorly because the President acted under a congressional grant.
The court then held that consular nonreviewability applies. The January 2026 refusal said it could not be appealed and did not mention administrative processing, so unlike the earlier § 221(g) refusal it was a final adjudication. The allegation of indefinite administrative processing was conclusory, and Plaintiffs offered no supporting facts at the hearing. Whether the refusal was mandatory under the policy did not matter. Claims four through seven were dismissed, as were claims two and three to the extent they attack the individualized decision.
Claims two and three otherwise survive. Relying on Mostafavi, Al-Shakliah, and Pietersen, the court held that nonreviewability does not shield the policy that produced the refusal, and that the APA reaches the No Visa Policy even though it does not reach the Proclamations. Following Thein, Noori, and similar cases, it saw no reason to depart from holdings that a policy of refusing visas based on § 212(f) proclamations is not in accordance with law, because § 212(f) concerns entry rather than visa issuance. Defendants must answer within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that INA § 212(f) supplies an intelligible principle, so the nondelegation claim against the entry proclamations was dismissed.
- A § 212(f) refusal that says it cannot be appealed and does not mention administrative processing was treated as a final decision protected by consular nonreviewability.
- The order expressly dismisses with prejudice only the portions of claims two and three based on the individualized decision, and it does not address leave to amend for the other dismissed claims.
- Claims two and three may proceed to the extent they challenge the No Visa Policy itself, with the court reasoning that § 212(f) governs entry, not visa issuance.
- This is a ruling on a motion to dismiss, so the court has not entered final relief against the policy.
Why It Matters
The order follows an approach other district courts have taken: an applicant cannot challenge a completed § 212(f) refusal, but the policy that produced it remains open to APA review. It also shows that an allegation of continuing administrative processing must be backed by specific facts to avoid dismissal.
The decision is an unpublished district court order by a magistrate judge, so it carries persuasive weight only. It also stops short of final relief: the court found the policy challengeable and consistent with prior holdings, but remedies, the administrative record, and any merits ruling remain ahead once Defendants answer.