AMINI v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NAIMATULLAH AMINI, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03219 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES 	)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint, Dkt. 1, and an Application for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for
the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, who appears to be a citizen of Afghanistan currently residing in Germany, see
Dkt. 1 at 1; see also Dkt. 1-1, contends that he was selected for the Diversity Visa Program, but
that when he applied for that visa, it was denied based on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, by the U.S. Consulate General at the U.S. Embassy in Frankfurt, Germany, see
Dkt. 1 at 1–2; see also Dkt. 1-2. He asks this Court to review that decision and award him equitable
relief affording him a U.S. visa. Dkt. 1 at 2.
This Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim because “[i]t
is undisputed that the decision to deny a visa is not subject to judicial review.” Malyutin v. Rice,
677 F. Supp. 2d 43, 46 (D.D.C. 2009), aff’d, No. 10–5015, 2010 WL 2710451 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 6,
2010) (per curiam), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1140 (2011). “Indeed, there can be no serious debate
about the matter,” because visa determinations are statutorily “enforced exclusively through
Case 1:25-cv-03219-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

executive officers without judicial intervention.” 	Id. (quoting Lem Moon Sing v. United States,
158 U.S. 538, 547 (1895). It is well-stablished that “the immigration laws preclude judicial review
of consular visa decisions and . . . the doctrine of consular nonreviewability remains intact[] until
Congress provides otherwise.” Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1162–63 (D.C. Cir.
1999). 	Furthermore, this jurisdictional limitation “applies broadly. It applies even where it is
alleged that the consular officer did not follow regulations,” where “the pertinent regulations are
invalid,” and where “the decision was based on factual or legal error.” Malyutin, 677 F. Supp. 2d
at 46 (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
Date: December 11, 2025
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03219-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2