Al Zuhairi v. United States Department of State et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________
OLA AL ZUHAIRI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Hon. Phillip J. Green
Case No. 1:25-cv-0568-PJG
OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action, claiming that the U.S. State Department has
unreasonably delayed its adjudication of her fiancé’s visa application, in violation of
her Due Process rights and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701,
et seq.1 Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to require the State Department to
adjudicate the visa application within sixty days. The State Department has moved
to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
and, in the alternative, that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. (ECF
No. 5, 6). Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 10) and the State Department has replied
(ECF No. 12).
1 The named defendants also include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the U.S.
Embassy in Ankara, Turkey; and the embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires, Michael Goldman.
For purposes of this opinion, the Court will refer to the defendants collectively as the
State Department.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of
15

2
Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the exhibits, and other relevant materials,
the Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons
articulated below, the Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Having determined it lacks jurisdiction to consider this matter, the
Court should not—and will not—address the merits of the allegations in the
complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ola Al Zuhairi is a U.S. citizen; her fiancé, Aiman Salih Qaddoori
Qaddoori, is an Iraqi citizen. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, ECF No. 1, PageID.2). Quite
understandably, Plaintiff wants her fiancé to be able to join her in the United States.
Accordingly, on July 11, 2022, she filed an I-129F visa petition on his behalf. (Id. at
¶¶ 10, 13, PageID.3-4). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) approved the petition on August 14, 2023, and forwarded it to the State
Department’s National Visa Center for further processing. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16,
PageID.4). The matter was then sent to the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, to
conduct an interview of Mr. Qaddoori. (Id. at ¶ 16). That happened on February 14,
2024. (Id. at ¶ 17). The consular officer who conducted the interview asked for
additional information, which Mr. Qaddoori provided. (Id.). The State Department’s
Consular Consolidated Database shows that the visa was refused the same day as his
interview for the stated reason that Mr. Qaddoori “failed to demonstrate his eligibility
for the visa.” (Peterson Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.62). “The consular officer
determined that additional security screening was required.” (Id.).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of
15

3
On August 8, 2025, the State Department filed its motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction; in the alternative, it argues that the complaint should be dismissed,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 5, 6). Plaintiff
opposes the motion, arguing, in relevant part, that the consular officer’s actions on
February 14, 2024, did not constitute a “final denial” of the visa application, and that
the State Department has yet to fully adjudicate it. (ECF No. 10, PageID.81-85).
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits a noncitizen from being
admitted into the United States without first being found eligible for, and having
received, a visa. Noncitizens seeking a visa on the basis that they are engaged to be
married to a U.S. citizen must satisfy certain statutory requirements. First, the
engaged citizen must file with the USCIS a Form I-129F Petition for Alien Fiancé,
demonstrating, among other things, a bona fide intention to marry the noncitizen.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15(K), 1184(d); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k). If the USCIS approves
the petition, it is forwarded to the State Department’s National Visa Center, which
forwards the visa case to an embassy or consulate where the noncitizen party may
apply for a nonimmigrant visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1202(h); 22 C.F.R. §§ 40.1(1), 41.103.
The applicant must provide certain documentation and appear for an interview with
a consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1202(d), (h).
The consular officer must ensure that the applicant is not inadmissible under
any provision of the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The noncitizen applicant bears the
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of
15

4
burden or establishing eligibility for a visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The decision to issue
or refuse a visa application rests with the consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1);
22 C.F.R. § 42.81. Unless satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated eligibility for
a visa, the consular officer must refuse the visa application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1361; see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) (“No visa . . . shall be issued to an alien if . . . it appears to the
consular officer, [from the application statements or papers] that such alien is
ineligible to receive a visa” or if “the consular officer knows or has reason to believe
that [the] alien is ineligible to receive a visa”). At the conclusion of the interview, the
consular officer must do one of three things: (1) issue the visa, (2) refuse the visa
under applicable statutory provisions, or (3) discontinue granting the visa pursuant
to a notice from the Attorney General under INA 243(d).2 See 22 C.F.R. 41.121(a). If
the visa is refused, the consular officer has discretion to afford the noncitizen
applicant an opportunity to present additional information, which may be used at a
later date to reconsider the refusal. (See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Administrative Processing Information (available at
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-
resources/administrative-processing-information.html (last visited March 24, 2026)).
2 Section 243(d) of the INA allows the Secretary of State to impose visa sanctions
against countries upon notice from the Attorney General that the government of those
countries are denying or unreasonably delaying the acceptance of nationals and
residents ordered removed to those countries. This provision is not at play in this
case.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of
15

5
LEGAL STANDARDS
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial
decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). This Court must assume that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
unless Plaintiff meets her burden of establishing it. See id. (citing Turner v. Bank of
North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 (1799); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)).
Congress has granted original jurisdiction to district courts in “any action in
the nature of mandamus” to compel agency action. 28 U.S.C. § 1361. But that is a
“drastic [remedy], to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Allied Chemical
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). The Court’s jurisdiction under the APA
is similarly circumscribed.3 A plaintiff seeking relief under either jurisdictional grant
must show, as a prerequisite to jurisdiction, that a government agency has failed to
carry out “a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.,
542 U.S. 55, 63-64 (2004). Absent such a showing, the Court lacks authority to even
hear the case. See Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Couns., 633 F.3d 487, 491 (6th Cir.
2011).
3 “ ‘When a [plaintiff] seeks both mandamus relief and relief under the APA, courts
apply the same principles and standards both to determine jurisdiction and to assess
the merits.’ ” Huron Mountain Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 545 F. App’x
390, 393 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Nelson v. United States, 107 F. App’x 469, 471 (6th
Cir. 2004)).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 5 of
15

6
A Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be categorized as
a facial attack or a factual attack. United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir.
1994). “A factual attack . . . is a challenge to the factual existence of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis in original). In such cases, there is no presumption of
truthfulness to the plaintiff’s factual allegations in the complaint, and the court is
free to weigh the evidence to determine whether the jurisdictional prerequisites have
been met. See id. The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
the elements of jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
The instant motion is properly characterized as a factual attack, as the issue of
jurisdiction turns on whether there remains any mandatory, nondiscretionary duty
the State Department owes Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
The State Department advances three arguments in support of its contention
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. First, that the
February 14, 2024, visa refusal discharged its statutory obligation under the INA,
the result of which either rendered Plaintiff’s claims moot or deprived her of standing.
(ECF No. 6, PageID.46-49). Second, that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability
bars judicial review of Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at PageID.49-53). Third, that Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of her fiancé’s visa application. (Id. at
PageID.53-54).
In opposition to the pending motion, Plaintiff contends that she has standing
to address injuries she claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged delay in
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 6 of
15

7
processing her fiancé’s visa application, including personal, professional, and
financial hardship. (ECF No. 10, PageID.75-77). She also asserts—relying on out-of-
circuit caselaw—that there can be no “final decision” as long as the State Department
continues the “administrative processing” of her fiancé’s visa application. (Id. at
PageID.77-79). In addition, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of consular non-
reviewability is inapplicable in this case because the consular officer’s February 14,
2024, refusal to issue a visa was not a “final decision.” (Id. at PageID.81-85).
For the reasons articulated below, the Court finds that the consular officer’s
February 14, 2024, decision to refuse the visa discharged the State Department’s
legal obligations regarding Mr. Qaddoori’s visa application, depriving Plaintiff of
standing to seek relief regarding the administrative adjudication of that matter. The
Court further finds that Plaintiff otherwise lacks standing to bring this action on
behalf of her fiancé, and that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability applies to
this case.
I. 	Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring the Instant Claims.
The State Department contends that the consular officer’s February 14, 2024,
refusal of Mr. Qaddoori’s visa discharged its duty to adjudicate his visa application
and, accordingly, Plaintiff’s pending claims are either moot or she lacks standing to
raise them. The Court agrees that the visa refusal satisfies the State Department’s
statutory obligation.
At the outset, however, the Court notes that this is an issue of standing, not
mootness. “Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in a time
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 7 of
15

8
frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the
litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Arizonans
for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997). As the visa refusal
predates the filing of this case, the Court will address Plaintiff’s standing, or lack
thereof, rather than mootness.
A. The consular officer’s refusal to issue the visa discharged the State
Department’s statutory obligations under the INA.
The doctrine of standing was developed “to ensure that federal courts do not
exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood” under Article III of the
Constitution. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). At a minimum, to
establish standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) there must
be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) it
must be likely that the injury is redressable by a favorable court decision. Lujan, 504
U.S. at 560-61.
The essence of the dispute between Plaintiff and the State Department is
whether the Department has any continuing, nondiscretionary duty to further
adjudicate Mr. Qaddoori’s visa application. (See Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, ECF No. 1,
PageID.5 (claiming that the State Department has “refused to adjudicate” and that
the visa application “has been in administrative processing beyond a reasonable time
period”)). Having reviewed the facts and applied them to the statutory requirements
of the INA, the Court has determined that the State Department has fulfilled its non-
discretionary obligations, and that there is nothing left that the Court can order be
done.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 8 of
15

9
The State Department has submitted evidence that Mr. Qaddoori was
interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, on
February 14, 2024. The evidence also shows that his visa was refused at the
conclusion of that interview. Nothing in the materials Plaintiff has submitted to this
Court refutes that fact. If anything, Plaintiff’s complaint essentially concedes it. (See
Compl. at ¶¶ 25-26, ECF No. 1, PageID.5). Rather, Plaintiff asserts that the refusal
is not a final decision because the consular officer, by requesting additional
information, kept open the “administrative processing” of Mr. Qaddoori’s visa
application. (See ECF No. 10, PageID.78-80).4
Under the INA, “[a]ll immigrant visa applications must be reviewed and
adjudicated by a consular officer.” 8 U.S.C. § 1202(b). The statute provides, in
pertinent part, that, after an interview, the consular officer must either issue the visa
or refuse it if the alien is ineligible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a), (g). The implementing
regulations are entirely consistent with these statutory provisions. See 22 C.F.R.
§ 42.81(a). There is no requirement in either the statute or the regulations “that a
refusal be ‘final’ or ineligible for discretionary re-adjudication or ‘administrative
processing’.” Yaghoubnezhad v. Stufft, 734 F. Supp.3d 87, 101 (D.D.C. 2024). Absent
such a requirement, the State Department has no continuing, nondiscretionary duty
to further adjudicate Mr. Qaddoori’s visa application. Moreover, “[t]he possibility
4 Plaintiff relies on several out-of-circuit opinions in support of her argument. (See
ECF No. 10, PageID.78-79). None of these opinions are binding, and the Court finds
none of them persuasive in light of the plain statutory language in the INA and the
in-circuit decisions cited herein.
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 9 of
15

10
that [the State Department] will reconsider [the visa] refusal is ‘immaterial, when no
statute, regulation, or other source imposes a duty to reconsider it.’ ” Sankari v. U.S.
Department of State, Case No. 2:24-cv-12975, 2025 WL 1550231, at *5 (E.D. Mich.
May 30, 2025) (citing Pegah Z. v. Blinken, Case No. 4:24-cv-0529, 2025 WL 629343,
at *4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2025); Omar v. Blinken, 756 F. Supp.3d 520, 533 (S.D. Ohio
2024)); see also Saad v. Risch, Case No. CV 18-12074, 2019 WL 3842898, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 15, 2019) (“[T]his Court concludes that, subsequent to their interviews,
the immigrant visa applications for Hamza and Yusuf were refused and placed in
administrative processing in order to verify their qualifications. That refusal was in
fact a determination by the Consular, regardless of the additional information
requested.”); cf. Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120, 127 (2012) (“The mere possibility that
an agency might reconsider in light of ‘informal discussion’ and invited contentions
of inaccuracy does not suffice to make an otherwise final agency action nonfinal.”).
The Sixth Circuit decision in Hussein v. Beecroft, 782 F. App’x 437 (6th Cir.
2019), is instructive here. In that case, a U.S. citizen filed a petition to have his
Yemeni wife granted a visa as an “immediate relative.” Id. at 439-40. The Yemini
spouse attended several consular interviews. The consular officer refused the visa,
and asked for confirming DNA tests of family members to confirm the marital
relationship. Id. at 440. While the visa dispute was ongoing, Hussein and his
purported wife filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a writ of
mandamus. Id. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the consular’s decision to
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 10 of
15

11
refuse the visa mooted their claim. Id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, notwithstanding
the fact the visa application remained in “administrative processing.” Id. at 442-43.
Consistent with the holding in Hussein, this Court finds that the State
Department fully discharged its statutory duty through the consular decision to
refuse Mr. Qaddoori’s visa. That it may consider additional information through
some ongoing discretionary administrative process is an insufficient predicate upon
which to establish standing—and accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction—to hear
this case.
B. Plaintiff lacks a constitutionally protected interest in obtaining a visa for
her fiancé.
Plaintiff claims that the State Department’s “delay and failure to act” on her
fiancé’s visa application has violated her due process rights. (Compl. ¶ 32, ECF No. 1,
PageID.6). Plaintiff does not identify, however, the substantive right that triggers
her entitlement to due process of law.
Plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the non-issuance of her fiancé’s visa through
her own due process claim runs headlong into the barrier raised by the Supreme
Court’s decision in Department of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024). In that
decision, the Court held that a U.S. citizen has no constitutionally protected interest
to have a non-citizen family member reside in this country. See id. at 916-17; see also
Baaghil v. Miller, 1 F.4th 427, 433 (6th Cir. 2021) (“American residents—whether
citizens or legal residents—do not have a constitutional right to require the National
Government to admit noncitizen family members into the country.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 11 of
15

12
Plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish her claim from Munoz is unavailing. She
offers no legal basis to support her novel contention that a citizen may challenge the
adequacy of the visa adjudication process, even though she lacks standing to
challenge the adjudication itself. None of the cases she cites sustains her burden of
establishing standing to bring her own due process claim regarding her fiancé’s visa
application. Several of the cases cited in Plaintiff’s brief essentially serves the
opposite purpose. See Shahijani v. Laitinen, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-3967, 2023 WL
6889774, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2023) (noting that “the regulation of spousal
immigration does not impinge on a spouse’s fundamental liberty interest”); Awal v.
Department of State, Case No. 24-cv-382, 2024 WL 4979661, at *3-4 (D. Minn. Dec. 4,
2024) (Munoz foreclosed due process claims over the alleged “fairness in
administrative adjudication” of a spouse’s visa application); Alam v. Blinken, Case
No. 2:24-cv-1103, 2024 WL 4804557, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024) (Munoz
foreclosed due process claims for untimely adjudication of non-citizen spouse’s visa
application). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s due process claim will be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
II. 	The Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability Bars Judicial Review of
Plaintiff’s Claims.
The State Department argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to consider Plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability. (ECF
No. 6, PageID.49-53). The Court agrees.
The Supreme Court has long held that “the admission and exclusion of foreign
nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 12 of
15

13
political departments largely immune from judicial control.’ ” Trump v. Hawaii, 585
U.S. 667, 702 (2018) (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). “Congress may
delegate to executive officials the discretionary authority to admit noncitizens
‘immune from judicial inquiry or interference.’ ” Munoz, 602 U.S. at 907 (quoting
Harisades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-591 (1952)). Such decisions are “ ‘final
and conclusive.’ ” Munoz, 602 U.S. at 908 (quoting United States ex rel. Knauff v.
Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950)). “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
does not authorize judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of a visa; thus, as a
rule, the federal courts cannot review those decisions.” Munoz, 602 U.S. at 908. This
has come to be known a “the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.” Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized a narrow exception to this doctrine when
“the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen.”
Trump, 585 U.S. at 703. When that exception applies, the Court is limited to
determining whether the consular official gave a “facially legitimate and bona fide
reason” for denying the visa. Munoz, 602 U.S. at 908 (internal quotations omitted).
If so, the Court may engage in no further inquiry; it may not review the adequacy or
the merits of the decision, nor may it balance the reason against the asserted
constitutional right. Id. (citing Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 104 (2015)).
The doctrine of consular non-reviewability applies to the instant case. The
U.S. consular official in Ankara, Turkey, refused to issue a visa to Mr. Qaddoori on
February 14, 2024, noting that Mr. Qaddoori “failed to demonstrate his eligibility for
the visa sought.” (Peterson Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 6-1, PageID.62).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 13 of
15

14
Plaintiff’s effort to avoid the application of this doctrine misses the mark. It is
based on her argument that the doctrine applies only to “final” decisions, and her
contention that the State Department has not yet rendered a “final” decision on the
visa. Plaintiff asks the Court to “assum[e] the truth” in her allegation that a visa
decision has not yet been made. (ECF No. 10, PageID.81). As this is a factual attack
on subject matter jurisdiction, the Court need not afford Plaintiff a presumption of
truth regarding the allegations in her complaint. See Ritchie, 15 F.3d at 598 (in
factual attacks to subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption of truthfulness
to the plaintiff’s factual allegations, and the court is free to weigh the evidence to
determine whether the jurisdictional prerequisites have been met). As discussed
earlier in this opinion, the Court has weighed the evidence and found that the
consular official completed the nondiscretionary duties owed to Mr. Qaddoori
regarding his visa application. There is no requirement that the State Department
put a “final” label on the decision; nor does it matter to this issue whether there is
some continued “administrative processing” of the visa. See Yaghoubnezhad, 734 F.
Supp.3d at 101. Accordingly, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability applies in
this case. See Baaghil, 1 F.4th at 432 (holding that the doctrine applies to visa
refusals).
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 14 of
15

15
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is
GRANTED. The Court DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. An Order and Judgment consistent with this
Opinion will enter.
Date: March 27, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00568-PJG ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/27/26 Page 15 of
15