Kordi v. Blinken et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Shakiba Rajab Kordi,
Plaintiff,
v.
Antony Blinken, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00659-TUC-RM (JR)
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant Antony Blinken’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff did not
respond. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. 12.) As set forth below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court
grant the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Shakiba Rajab Kordi, a U.S. citizen, filed the
Complaint seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the State Department to adjudicate her
father’s immigrant visa application. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that on October 23, 2020,
her father’s I-130 petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”). (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that on November 7, 2022, her father attended his
consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arabe Emirates and in the
34 months since that date her father’s case with USCIS has been in “Administrative
Case 4:25-cv-00659-RM Document 14 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Processing” status. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that despite repeated inquiries, USCIS has not
provided any meaningful updates on her father’s case, and that such prolonged delay
caused significant financial and emotional hardship. (Id.)
On February 3, 2026, Defendant Antony Blinken filed the immediate Motion to
Dismiss along with an accompanying exhibit, a declaration from U.S. Department of State
Attorney-Advisor Samuel W. McDonald. (See Docs. 9, 10.) Mr. McDonald declares under
the penalty of perjury that the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs’
electronic Consular Consolidated Database (“CCD”) reflects that on November 7, 2022, a
consular officer refused Petitioner’s father’s visa under INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g)
determining that Plaintiff’s father failed to demonstrate his eligibility for the visa sought
and initiated additional security screening. (Doc. 10 at 3.) Mr. McDonald declares that the
CCD reflects that on the same day local staff at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi sent
Plaintiff’s father questions found in the Form DS-5535, Supplemental Questions for visa
applicants. (Id.) Mr. McDonald further declares that the CCD reflects that on January 29,
2026, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi refused Petitioner’s father’s
visa application under INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation 10998. (Id.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a district court must dismiss an action if it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the suit. Because federal courts are limited jurisdiction courts, it is
“presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing
the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447
F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be
either a facial or factual attack. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2004). A factual attack disputes the truth of allegations that would otherwise invoke
federal jurisdiction. Meyer, 373 F.3d at 1039. When addressing a factual attack on
jurisdiction, the court does not presume the truth of the allegations in the complaint and
Case 4:25-cv-00659-RM Document 14 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
may review evidence beyond the complaint. Id.
Once the movant produces evidence, the plaintiff must furnish affidavits or other
evidence to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880
F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1989). The court “may review any evidence, such as affidavits and
testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” McCarthy
v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052 (1989),
(citing Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4 (1947)); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Nichols, 885 F.2d 633, 635-36 (9th Cir. 1989).
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal court jurisdiction depends on a live
case or controversy. Pub. Utilities Comm’n of State of Cal. v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458
(9th Cir. 1996). A claim is therefore moot if it is no longer a live controversy. Am. Rivers
v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). The test for mootness
is whether the court can give a party any effective relief if it decides the matter on the
merits in her favor. Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). “If it appears
that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then [the] case is moot.”
Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991).
ANALYSIS
The complaint requests a single ground for relief, namely, “that the Court issue a
writ of mandamus and order the U.S. Department of State and its officials to complete
adjudication of [Plaintiff’s] father’s immigrant visa application within a set time frame.”
(Doc. 1 at 3.) The USCIS completed the requested adjudication on January 29, 2026. (Doc.
10 at 3.) Therefore, no live controversy remains in the immediate case, and the requested
relief is moot. See Zhou v. Chertoff, 2009 WL 2246231, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2009)
(“the consulate has issued a decision pursuant to section 221(g), and plaintiff's request for
mandamus relief is moot.”); see also OC Modeling, LLC v. Pompeo, 2020 WL 7263278,
at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) (“Because the consular office has already refused the visa
application, Plaintiff's claims for relief are moot”). Accordingly, the undersigned
recommends granting the Defendant’s Motion on the grounds that the case is moot and
Case 4:25-cv-00659-RM Document 14 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
therefore the federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
To the extent the Plaintiff may seek to challenge the outcome of USCIS’s
adjudication of her father’s visa application, the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over such challenge due to the doctrine of nonreviewability. See Zhou, 2009
WL 2246231, at *1 (“The Ninth Circuit has consistently affirmed the doctrine of consular
nonreviewability as a bar against courts substituting their own judgment for that of consular
officials either to grant or deny visas.”) (citing Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800
F.2d 970, 970 (9th Cir.1986); Ventura-Escamilla v. INS, 647 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir. 1981)).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the district
court, after its independent review, enter an order ADOPTING this Report and
Recommendation, GRANTING Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 9) and DISMISSING the
above captioned matter with prejudice.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file
written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and
Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen
days. No reply shall be filed unless leave is granted by the district court. If objections are
not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. Failure to file timely objections to any factual
or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right
to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). If objections are filed, the parties should use the following
case number: CV-25-659-TUC-RM.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00659-RM Document 14 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 4