Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
U.S. citizen Shabnam Kayami filed an approved family petition for her father, Iranian national Bahman Khayyami. After his immigrant-visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia, the application was refused under Immigration and Nationality Act section 221(g) and placed into administrative processing. The family submitted requested material, but the review remained pending.
Kayami and her father sued State Department officials under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act, seeking to compel final action. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the section 221(g) refusal was final, that no mandatory duty remained, and that the delay was not unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The district court rejected the jurisdictional theory. Taking the complaint’s allegations as true, the application remained under active administrative review, so the section 221(g) refusal was not necessarily a final adjudication. Ninth Circuit authority recognizes that an application in continued processing has not reached final resolution, and the agency retains a mandatory duty to adjudicate it to finality. The court therefore had power to assess unreasonable delay.
On the merits, however, the complaint did not plausibly show an unreasonable delay under the six TRAC factors. The length of processing, the absence of a statutory deadline, and the effect of compelling action on other applicants weighed strongly for the government. The human consequences to the family weighed for the plaintiffs, while alleged bad faith was unsupported and neutral. The court dismissed without prejudice, leaving open a new action if continued delay later becomes unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- A visa application placed in ongoing administrative processing after a section 221(g) refusal may remain subject to a mandatory duty of final adjudication.
- That conclusion permits judicial review but does not establish that the existing delay is unreasonable.
- Courts balance delay using the TRAC factors, including governing timelines, human consequences, and the effect of advancing one application ahead of others.
- Dismissal without prejudice preserves the possibility of renewed review if the passage of time or changed circumstances alters the balance.
Why It Matters
The order separates two issues that are often blurred in visa-delay litigation: whether a court can review an application still in administrative processing, and whether the particular delay warrants relief. Families may clear the first hurdle yet lose because the elapsed time and queue effects do not support intervention.
Practitioners should document continuing agency activity, the precise duration at each stage, concrete harms to health or family unity, and facts distinguishing the client from others awaiting adjudication. A bare allegation of bad faith will carry little weight without supporting conduct.