Moreover, the defendants assert that “the consular non-reviewability doctrine shields a consular official's [final] decision to issue or withhold a visa from judicial review.” Motevali v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-2133 (RC), 2024 WL 3580937, at *4 (D.D.C. July 30, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Defs.' Mot. at 6. Until recently, the Court would be inclined to reject the defendants' challenges.
The decision in Karimova raises questions about the body of case law in this District finding that a final decision has not been rendered on an application that has been “refused” subject to further administrative processing and thus rejecting application of the consular nonreviewability doctrine in such circumstances. As applied in the instant case, Karimova would suggest that once the consular officer reviewed plaintiff's application, interviewed him, and withheld issuance of a visa at the end of his interview, see Compl. ¶¶ 23-25; Pl.'s Opp'n at 7, “[p]laintiff's visa application was ‘officially refused' notwithstanding its later placement in administrative processing.” Asadi, 2024 WL 3835409, at *4 (citing Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *4); see also Motevali v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-2133 (RC), 2024 WL 3580937, at *4 (D.D.C. July 30, 2024) (recognizing the same); Sharifishourabi v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-3382 (RC), 2024 WL 3566226, at *5 (D.D.C. July 29, 2024) (same).
In any event, determining “the extent to which Karimova disrupts prior decisions rejecting the government's reliance on the consular non-reviewability doctrine in cases similar to this one,” Asadi, 2024 WL 3835409, at *5, is unnecessary since, as set forth infra in Part III.D, plaintiff's claims fail on the merits. See, e.g., Sharifishourabi, 2024 WL 3566226, at *4 (in postKarimova suit, assuming “favorably to Plaintiffs, that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability does not bar review of their claims” because “Plaintiffs' claims fail on their merits in any event”); Motevali v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-2133 (RC), 2024 WL 3580937, at *5 (“[T]he Court need not scour Plaintiffs' complaint and opposition briefing to determine whether they have alleged a clear, non-discretionary duty stemming from another source; their claims fail on the merits.”).
Here, as other Courts in this District have done, the Court will not further analyze the impact of Karimova on the facts before it, because defendants are entitled to dismissal in any event. See Motevali v. Blinken, No. CV 23-cv-2133 (RC), 2024 WL 3580937, at *4 (D.D.C. July 30, 2024) (noting the potential impact of Karimova on consular nonreviewability of visa applications in administrative processing, but declining to explore the implications and dismissing on the merits of unreasonable delay); see also Sharifshourabi v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-3382 (RC), 2024 WL 3566226, at *5 (D.D.C. July 29, 2024) (same).
As applied here, Karimova “suggests that once ‘a consular officer reviewed Plaintiffs application, interviewed her, and ruled that no visa would be granted,' Plaintiffs visa application was ‘officially refused' notwithstanding its later placement in administrative processing.” Asadi, 2024 WL 3835409, at *4 (brackets omitted) (quoting Karimova, 2024 WL 3517852, at *4); see also Motevali v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-2133 (RC), 2024 WL 3580937, at *4 (D.D.C. July 30, 2024) (recognizing the same); Sharifishourabi v. Blinken, No. 23-cv-3382 (RC), 2024 WL 3566226, at *5 (D.D.C. July 29, 2024) (same). Defendants invoke Department of State v. Muno:, 144 S.Ct. 1812, and Goodluck v. Biden, 104 F.4th 920 (D.C. Cir. 2024), as support for their position that the consular non-reviewability doctrine bars review of plaintiffs claims, see Defs.' Not. Suppl. Auth., ECF No. 10, but neither case mandates departure from reasoning on this Court that the doctrine has no application here.