UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division - Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM

Shamim Darchini et al v. Michael R. Pompeo et al Assigned to: Judge James V. Selna Referred to: Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick Related Cases: 2:19-cv-06967-JVS-DFM
2:20-cv-02263-JVS-DFM Case in other court: 20-55325 Cause: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Date Terminated: 12/03/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 465 Other Immigration Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff Shamim Darchini

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison Law Office of Curtis Morrison LC PO Box 7140 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 714-661-3446 Fax: 714-333-4653 Email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amin Sirati

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Parto Kavoosian

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
N. F. minor

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Behnaz Kavoosian
Plaintiff Kiyoumars Kavoosian
Plaintiff Farzan Nematollah TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Seyedehnazanin Miremarati TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Ashkan Keshtmand
Plaintiff Tahereh Fereydouni
Plaintiff Mehrnaz Rassi TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Djalal Ebrahimnejad TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Batoul Dehghan Khatrami TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff R. R. minor TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff S. R. minor TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff H. R. minor TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff A. R. minor
Plaintiff Manijeh Javdan
Plaintiff

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samira Bayramzadeh
Plaintiff John Doe TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Jane Doe TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Mansour Hardanian
Plaintiff Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh
Plaintiff Masoud Abdi
Plaintiff Shima Montakhabi
Plaintiff

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Navid Abdoullahzadeh
Plaintiff Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari
Plaintiff Siavash Koohmaraie TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Anahita Mehrani TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Plaintiff Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari
Plaintiff A. S.(1) minor
Plaintiff A. S.(2) minor
Plaintiff

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Farshad Amirkhani
Plaintiff Keyvan Parsa
Plaintiff Mahsa Mousaei
Plaintiff Arash Rafii Sereshki
Plaintiff Bijan Rafii Sereshki

represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis Lee Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Michael R. Pompeo in his official capacity as Secretary of State TERMINATED: 02/20/2020

represented by Joseph Anton Darrow DOJ-USAO P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-514-0618 Email: joseph.a.darrow@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz AUSA - Office of US Attorney

Defendant Joel D. Nantais in his official capacity as Passport and Visa Examiner of U.S. Department of State TERMINATED: 02/20/2020
Defendant Erin R. Hoffman in official capacity as member of U.S. Department of State's PP 9645 Brain Trust TERMINATED: 02/20/2020
Defendant Dean M. Kaplan in official capacity as member of

300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-2083 Fax: 213-894-7819 Email: aaron.kollitz@usdoj.gov
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-353-8806 Email: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address)

U.S. Department of State's PP 9645 Brain Trust TERMINATED: 02/20/2020
Defendant Daniel E. Mickelson in official capacity as member of U.S. Department of State's PP 9645 Brain Trust TERMINATED: 02/20/2020
Defendant U.S. Department of State
Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 02/20/2020
Defendant Does No. 3 - No. 10, in their official capacity as consular and other officials employed by the U.S. Department of State
Defendant Chad Wolf

OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Kollitz (See above for address)
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph Anton Darrow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/22/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-24128735 - Fee: $400, filed by plaintiffs A. S.(2), FARSHAD AMIRKHANI, JANE DOE, FARZAN NEMATOLLAH, NAVID ABDOULLAHZADEH, AMIN SIRATI, A. R., SHAMIM DARCHINI, MANIJEH JAVDAN, FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI, H. R., SHIMA MONTAKHABI, MOZHDEH HAFEZIBAKHTIARI, SIAVASH KOOHMARAIE, R. R., JOHN DOE, MASOUD ABDI, TAHEREH FEREYDOUNI, A. S.(1), MAHSA MOUSAEI, MEHRNAZ RASSI, MANSOUR HARDANIAN, BATOUL DEHGHAN KHATRAMI, ELAHEH

ALIKHAN ZADEH, ANAHITA MEHRANI, KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN, PARTO KAVOOSIAN, ARASH RAFII SERESHKI, ASHKAN KESHTMAND, DJALAL EBRAHIMNEJAD, S. R., SEYEDEHNAZANIN MIREMARATI, N. F., KEYVAN PARSA, BIJAN SERESHKI, SAMIRA BAYRAMZADEH, BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN. (Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MASOUD ABDI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party NAVID ABDOULLAHZADEH(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party FARSHAD AMIRKHANI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party SAMIRA BAYRAMZADEH(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party SHAMIM DARCHINI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party BATOUL DEHGHAN KHATRAMI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party JANE DOE(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party JOHN DOE(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party DJALAL EBRAHIMNEJAD(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party N. F.(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party TAHEREH FEREYDOUNI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MOZHDEH HAFEZIBAKHTIARI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MANSOUR HARDANIAN(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MANIJEH JAVDAN(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party PARTO KAVOOSIAN(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party ASHKAN KESHTMAND(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party SIAVASH KOOHMARAIE(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party ANAHITA MEHRANI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party SEYEDEHNAZANIN MIREMARATI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party SHIMA MONTAKHABI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MAHSA MOUSAEI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party FARZAN NEMATOLLAH(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party KEYVAN PARSA(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party A. R.(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party H. R.(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party R. R.(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party S. R.(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party ARASH RAFII SERESHKI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party MEHRNAZ RASSI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party A. S.(1)(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party A. S.(2)(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee

07/23/2019 07/23/2019
07/23/2019
07/23/2019 07/23/2019

Morrison added to party BIJAN SERESHKI(pty:pla), Attorney Curtis Lee Morrison added to party AMIN SIRATI(pty:pla))(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge James V. Selna and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (esa) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: The Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)is missing or incomplete. All civil actions presented for filing must be accompanied by a completed Civil Cover Sheet. See Local Rule 3-1. Counsel must file a completed Civil Cover Sheet immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. Other error(s) with document(s): It appears a guardian ad litem is named in this case but no Petition seeking such appointment has been filed. A Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem must be filed when the appointment of a guardian ad litem is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). See Local Rule 171. Counsel must file a Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 837. 17. (esa) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs, (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS & MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

07/23/2019 07/27/2019

THEREOF filed by plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
7 APPLICATION to file document Exhibits A, B, and C (to MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS & MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF) under seal filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document, # 2 Unredacted Document, # 3 Unredacted Document, # 4 Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Adjudication of PP 9645(3)(C) waivers that have been unreasonably delayed by Defendants. Motion filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. Motion set for hearing on 9/9/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhibit W, # 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit Y, # 28 Exhibit Z, # 29 Exhibit AA, # 30 Exhibit BB, # 31 Exhibit CC, # 32 Exhibit DD, # 33 Exhibit EE, # 34 Exhibit FF, # 35 Exhibit GG, # 36 Exhibit HH, # 37 Exhibit II, # 38 Exhibit JJ, # 39 Exhibit KK, # 40 Exhibit LL, # 41 Exhibit MM, # 42 Exhibit NN, # 43 Exhibit OO, # 44 Exhibit PP, # 45 Exhibit QQ, # 46 Exhibit RR, # 47 Exhibit SS, # 48 Exhibit TT, # 49 Exhibit UU, # 50 Exhibit VV, # 51 Exhibit WW, # 52 Exhibit XX, # 53 Exhibit YY, # 54 Exhibit ZZ, # 55 Exhibit AAA, # 56 Exhibit BBB, # 57 Exhibit CCC, # 58 Exhibit DDD, # 59 Exhibit EEE, # 60 Exhibit FFF, # 61 Exhibit GGG, # 62 Exhibit HHH, # 63 Exhibit III, # 64 Exhibit JJJ, # 65 Exhibit KKK, # 66 Exhibit LLL, # 67 Exhibit MMM, # 68 Exhibit NNN, # 69 Exhibit OOO, # 70 Exhibit PPP, # 71 Exhibit QQQ, # 72 Exhibit RRR, # 73 Exhibit SSS, # 74 Exhibit TTT, # 75 Exhibit UUU, # 76 Exhibit VVV, # 77 Exhibit WWW, # 78 Exhibit XXX, # 79 Exhibit YYY, # 80 Exhibit ZZZ, # 81 Exhibit AAAA,

07/28/2019
07/29/2019 07/29/2019

# 82 Exhibit BBBB, # 83 Exhibit CCCC, # 84 Exhibit DDDD, # 85 Exhibit EEEE, # 86 Exhibit FFFF, # 87 Exhibit GGGG, # 88 Exhibit HHHH, # 89 Exhibit IIII, # 90 Exhibit JJJJ, # 91 Exhibit KKKK, # 92 Exhibit LLLL, # 93 Exhibit MMMM, # 94 Exhibit NNNN, # 95 Exhibit OOOO, # 96 Exhibit PPPP, # 97 Exhibit QQQQ, # 98 Exhibit RRRR, # 99 Exhibit SSSS, # 100 Exhibit TTTT, # 101 Exhibit UUUU, # 102 Exhibit VVVVV, # 103 Exhibit WWWW) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/27/2019)
9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment #1, # 2 Supplement Attachment #2)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/28/2019)
10 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request, 9 . The following error(s) was found: The name and address of the attorney for plaintiff(s)must be entered in the appropriate field. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (es) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment #1, # 2 Attachment #2)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

07/29/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019 07/30/2019 07/31/2019
08/01/2019

12 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: After consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the evidence filed in support of and opposition to APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TO UNDER SEAL, and being fully advised, the Court: GRANTS THE MOTION. 7 (es) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
13 ORDER 6 by Judge James V. Selna. After consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the evidence filed in support of and opposition to MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS & MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF, and being fully advised, the Court: GRANTS THE MOTION. (es) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
14 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal, 12 filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe, John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
15 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 as to Defendant Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (es) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
16 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite Production of Administrative Records filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
17 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite Production of Administrative Records 16 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3)

08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019
08/05/2019

take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (sbou) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
18 PETITION for Appointment of Parto Kavoosian as Guardian ad Litem for N.F. filed by plaintiff N. F.. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
19 PETITION for Appointment of Mehrnaz Rassi as Guardian ad Litem for R.R., S.R., H.R., and A.R. filed by plaintiffs A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R.. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
20 PETITION for Appointment of Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari as Guardian ad Litem for S.A.(1) and S.A.(2) filed by plaintiffs A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
21 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Joseph Anton Darrow counsel for Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Adding Joseph Anton Darrow as counsel of record for Defendants Michael R. Pompeo; Joel D. Nantias; Erin R. Hoffman; Dean M. Kaplan; Daniel E. Mickelson; U.S. Department of State; Kevin K. McAleenan; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Does 3-10 for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Defendants Michael R. Pompeo; Joel D. Nantias; Erin R. Hoffman; Dean M. Kaplan; Daniel E. Mickelson; U.S. Department of State; Kevin K. McAleenan; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Does 3-10. (Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Does(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Erin R. Hoffman (pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Dean M. Kaplan(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Kevin K. McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Daniel E. Mickelson(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Joel D. Nantais(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Michael R. Pompeo(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party U.S. Department of State(pty:dft))(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
22 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: PETITION for Appointment of Parto Kavoosian as Guardian ad Litem for N.F. 18 , PETITION for Appointment of Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari as Guardian ad Litem for S.A.(1) and S.A.(2) 20 , PETITION for Appointment of Mehrnaz Rassi as Guardian ad Litem for R.R., S.R., H.R., and A.R. 19 . The following error(s)

08/08/2019
08/09/2019 08/09/2019 08/12/2019 08/16/2019
08/16/2019

was/were found: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (sbou) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
26 MINUTES OF Telephone Discovery Conference held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Case called. Counsel make their appearances. Court and counsel confer regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Production of Administrative Records 16 . The Court sets the following briefing schedule: Opposition to Motion due 8/16/2019; Reply due 8/23/2019 and Hearing on Motion 8/27/2019, at 10:00 a.m. Court Reporter: CS 08/08/2019. (et) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
24 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: granting 19 PETITION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Appointing MEHRNAZ RASSI as Guardian ad Litem for R.R., S.R., H.R., and A.R. (sbou) Modified on 8/12/2019 (sbou). (Entered: 08/12/2019)
25 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: granting 20 PETITION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Appointing FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI as Guardian ad Litem for S.A.(1) and S.A.(2). (sbou) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
23 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: granting 18 PETITION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Appointing PARTO KAVOOSIAN as Guardian ad Litem for N.F. (sbou) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
27 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite Production of Administrative Records 16 filed by Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
28 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Adjudication of PP 9645(3)(C) waivers that have been unreasonably delayed by Defendants. Motion 8 filed by Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/19/2019 08/22/2019 08/26/2019

29 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff A. S.(2), Farshad Amirkhani, Jane Doe, Farzan Nematollah, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Amin Sirati, A. R., Shamim Darchini, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, H. R., Shima Montakhabi, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Siavash Koohmaraie, R. R., John Doe, Masoud Abdi, Tahereh Fereydouni, A. S.(1), Mahsa Mousaei, Mehrnaz Rassi, Mansour Hardanian, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Anahita Mehrani, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Arash Rafii Sereshki, Ashkan Keshtmand, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, S. R., Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, N. F., Keyvan Parsa, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Samira Bayramzadeh, Behnaz Kavoosian, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to F. Dela Rosa, for U.S. Attorney's Office. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
30 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite Production of Administrative Records 16 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
31 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Adjudication of PP 9645(3)(C) waivers that have been unreasonably delayed by Defendants. Motion 8 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit

08/27/2019 08/27/2019 08/30/2019 09/06/2019
09/09/2019

D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 08/26/2019)
32 MINUTES OF Motion to Expedite Production of Administrative Records 16 held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Case called. Counsel make their appearances. Counsel argue motion. Court takes matter under submission. Court Recorder: CS 08/27/19. (sbou) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
33 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Production of Administrative Records by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. (See document for details.) re 16 (sbou) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
34 [IN CHAMBERS] SCHEDULING NOTICE: On the Court's own motion, the MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Adjudication of PP 9645(3)(C) waivers that have been unreasonably delayed 8 previously set for 9/9/2019 at 1:30 pm is continued to 9/16/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/30/2019)
35 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Adjudication of PP 9645(3)(C) waivers that have been unreasonably delayed by Defendants. Motion 8 Notice of Filing Supplemental Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl filed by Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Supplemental Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
36 First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions as to All Defendants and their Counsel of Record filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. Motion set for hearing on 10/7/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,

09/10/2019
09/13/2019
09/13/2019 09/16/2019 09/19/2019

# 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
37 NOTICE OF MOTION re First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions as to All Defendants and their Counsel of Record 36 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. Motion set for hearing on 10/7/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
38 First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Supplemental Evidence in Support of Pl. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
39 OPPOSITION to First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions as to All Defendants and their Counsel of Record 36 filed by Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Email between Joseph Darrow and Curtis Morrison)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
41 MINUTES OF Motion for Preliminary Injunction 8 Hearing held: Motion argued and taken under submission. Court Reporter: Sharon Seffens. (lb) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
40 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to PLAINTIFFS Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira

09/24/2019 09/25/2019
09/25/2019 09/26/2019 09/27/2019

Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati for Court Reporter. Court will contact CURTIS LEE MORRISON at CURTIS@CURTISMORRISONLAW.COM with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
42 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge James V. Selna: For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion (See document for further details) (es) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
43 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 9-16-19 4:03 p.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Sharon Seffens, phone number sseffens@earthlink.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/16/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/28/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/24/2019. (Seffens, Sharon) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
44 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 9-16-19 4:03 p.m. re Transcript 43 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Seffens, Sharon) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/25/2019)
45 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order of August 27, 2019 filed by defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2019 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
46 Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference set for 12/9/2019 at 10:30 am before Judge James V. Selna. Counsel shall file the Joint Rule

09/29/2019
09/30/2019 10/03/2019 10/03/2019

26 Meeting Report, with the completed Exhibit A, by 12/2/2019. (lb) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
47 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order of August 27, 2019 45 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Transcript))(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 09/29/2019)
48 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State DCN number: R19A1746 for Court Reporter. (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
49 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Motion for Sanctions by Judge James V. Selna: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. The Court further finds that oral argument would not be helpful on this matter, and vacates the October 7, 2019 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. (See order for details.) (es) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
50 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing as to Advance Hearing Date re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order of August 27, 2019 45 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/04/2019
10/07/2019 10/15/2019 10/23/2019

51 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Hearing as to Advance Hearing Date re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order of August 27, 2019 45 50 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ENFORCE MAG. J.S ORDER OF AUG. 27, 2019 (mj) filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Erin R. Hoffman (pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Dean M. Kaplan(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Kevin K. McAleenan(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Daniel E. Mickelson(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Joel D. Nantais(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party Michael R. Pompeo(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Kollitz added to party U.S. Department of State(pty:dft))(Kollitz, Aaron) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
52 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick DENYING 50 Ex Parte Application for Hearing. (nbo) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
53 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case For Failure to State a Claim for Relief filed by Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. Motion set for hearing on 11/18/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
54 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Enforce Mag. J.'s Order of Aug. 27, 2019 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/23/2019)

10/29/2019
10/29/2019 11/03/2019
11/04/2019 11/05/2019

55 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Enforce Mag. J. Order of Aug. 27, 2019 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
58 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: Counsel argue motion. Court continues hearing to November 12, 2019, at 10:30 am. Court Recorder: CS 10/29/2019. (nbo) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
56 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case For Failure to State a Claim for Relief 53 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/03/2019)
57 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 56 filed by defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
59 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 56 57 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal

11/06/2019 11/12/2019
11/12/2019 11/12/2019

Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Declaration), # 2 Exhibit B (Email))(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
60 ORDER RE: FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION 57 by Judge James V. Selna: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Defendant's ex parte Application is GRANTED in part; and 2. The time for the Federal Defendants to file their reply in support of the pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF # 53) is extended up to and including November 12, 2019. 3. The hearing is continued to December 3, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. (es) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
61 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ENFORCE MAG. J.S ORDER OF AUG. 27, 2019 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Jane Doe, Manijeh Javdan, John Doe, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Siavash Koohmaraie, Anahita Mehrani, Seyedehnazanin Miremarati, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Farzan Nematollah, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., H. R., R. R., S. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Mehrnaz Rassi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
62 MINUTES OF Motion to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order on 08/27/2019 45 held before Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Case called. Counsel make their appearances. Court and Counsel confer regarding motion. The Court take the matter under submission. An order will issue. Court Recorder: CS 11/12/19. (sbou) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
63 REPLY In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case For Failure to State a Claim for Relief 53 filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

11/12/2019 11/13/2019 11/18/2019
11/19/2019 11/19/2019

64 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Enforce Magistrate Judge's Order of August 27, 2019 45 Second Supplemental Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Supplemental Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
65 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by plaintiffs Jane Doe, Farzan Nematollah, A. R., H. R., Siavash Koohmaraie, John Doe, R. R., Mehrnaz Rassi, Batoul Dehghan Khatrami, Anahita Mehrani, Djalal Ebrahimnejad, S. R., Seyedehnazanin Miremarati pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to All Defendants. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
66 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss re Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 56 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Keyvan Parsa, Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
67 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: After consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the evidence filed in support of and opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TO DISMISS, and being fully advised, the Court: APPROVES THE MOTION 66 (es) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
68 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case For Failure to State a Claim for Relief 53 Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit XXXX, # 2 Exhibit

11/29/2019
12/02/2019 12/02/2019
12/03/2019 12/03/2019 12/06/2019

YYYY, # 3 Exhibit ZZZZ, # 4 Exhibit AAAAA, # 5 Exhibit BBBBB, # 6 Exhibit CCCCC)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
69 Second EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file supplemental evidence in support of Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Declaration of Joel Nantais) filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 11/29/2019)
70 ORDER ON EX PARTE FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE 69 by Judge James V. Selna: After consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the evidence filed in support of and opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE (THE DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT JOEL NANTAIS) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR TO DISMISS, and being fully advised, the Court: DENIES THE MOTION (es) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
71 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 3-4 days, filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
72 MINUTES OF Motion to Dismiss Complaint 53 Hearing held: Motion is argued and taken under submission. Court Reporter: Sharon Seffens. (lb) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
73 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss by Judge James V. Selna: For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. (See order for details.) ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (es) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
74 REQUEST to AMEND Order on Motion to Dismiss Case 73 filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh,

12/09/2019 12/10/2019 12/30/2019
01/13/2020 01/14/2020

Farshad Amirkhani, Samira Bayramzadeh, Shamim Darchini, N. F., Tahereh Fereydouni, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Mansour Hardanian, Manijeh Javdan, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Shima Montakhabi, Mahsa Mousaei, Keyvan Parsa, A. R., Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki, A. S.(1), A. S.(2), Amin Sirati. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
75 OPPOSITION to REQUEST to AMEND Order on Motion to Dismiss Case 73 74 filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State. (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
76 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna: After consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the evidence filed in support of and opposition to REQUEST/APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COURT'S DEC. 3, 2019 ORDER, and being fully advised, the conclusion of the Court's December 3, 2019 order is amended to be without prejudice to allow repleading within twenty days. 74 (es) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
77 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Does, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 , filed by plaintiffs A. S.(2), Farshad Amirkhani, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Shima Montakhabi, Masoud Abdi, A. S.(1), Mansour Hardanian, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Arash Rafii Sereshki, Parto Kavoosian, N. F., Bijan Rafii Sereshki, Behnaz Kavoosian (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
78 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case /Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. Motion set for hearing on 2/11/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fourth Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl, # 2 Proposed Order) (Attorney Joseph Anton Darrow added to party Chad Wolf(pty:dft)) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
79 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais,

01/14/2020 01/16/2020 01/16/2020
01/18/2020 01/18/2020

Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. correcting NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case /Dismiss Amended Complaint 78 Renoticing Motion for Proper Date (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
80 Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Re-noticed) filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. Motion set for hearing on 2/10/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fourth Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl, # 2 Proposed Order) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
81 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. correcting Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Re-noticed) 80 (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
82 Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. Motion set for hearing on 2/10/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fourth Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl, # 2 Proposed Order) (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
83 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by plaintiffs Arash Rafii Sereshki, Bijan Rafii Sereshki pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to All Defendants. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 01/18/2020)
84 OPPOSITION to Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) 82 filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Mansour Hardanian, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 01/18/2020)

01/24/2020 01/27/2020
01/30/2020 02/06/2020 02/09/2020 02/20/2020 02/20/2020

85 NOTICE Supplemental Authority filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Mansour Hardanian, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
86 REPLY In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case /Dismiss Amended Complaint 78 , Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) 82 filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. (Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 01/27/2020)
87 NOTICE (SECOND) Supplemental Authority filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Mansour Hardanian, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
88 [IN CHAMBERS] SCHEDULING NOTICE: On the Court's own motion, the MOTION to Dismiss Case 80 , 82 set for 2/10/2020 at 1:30 pm is continued to 3/9/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge James V. Selna. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/06/2020)
89 NOTICE filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Mansour Hardanian, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). Third Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Corrected Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/09/2020)
90 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by plaintiffs Mansour Hardanian, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) as to Mansour Hardanian, Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
91 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Withdraw Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) 82 (Unopposed) filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz

02/21/2020 02/24/2020 02/24/2020 03/04/2020 03/12/2020 03/16/2020

Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
92 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint from March 9, 2020 at 1:30 pm to March 16, 2020 at 1:30 pm filed by Defendants Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Kevin K. McAleenan, Daniel E. Mickelson, Joel D. Nantais, Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Joseph A. Darrow, # 2 Proposed Order)(Darrow, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
93 ORDER by Judge James V. Selna,GRANTING 91 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, is granted. (es) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
94 SUPPLEMENT to Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) 82 Submission of Submission of Feb. 18, 2020 State Dept. Statistics filed by Plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, N. F., Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
95 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 92 by Judge James V. Selna. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is continued to March 16, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. (es) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
96 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Supplemental Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
97 [IN CHAMBERS] SCHEDULING NOTICE: The hearing today, 3/16/2020 at 1:30 pm is VACATED. Any party may file a request for hearing of no more than five pages no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday) stating why oral argument is necessary. If no request is submitted, the matter will be deemed submitted on the papers and the tentative will

become the order of the Court. If the request is granted, the Court will advise the parties when and how the hearing will be conducted. The Court asks for the parties understanding and patience in these difficult times. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020

98 REQUEST for Hearing oral argument, re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 97 , Corrected NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case (Renoticed for 1:30 pm on February 10, 2020) 82 , EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Supplemental Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 96 , filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/18/2020

99 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss by Judge James V. Selna: For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. (See document for details.) (es) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/20/2020

100 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by plaintiffs Masoud Abdi, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). Appeal of Order on Motion for Hearing 99 . (Appeal Fee - $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC25808238.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement, # 2 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/25/2020

101 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 20-55325 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 100 as to Plaintiff Masoud Abdi, Farshad Amirkhani, N. F., Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Parto Kavoosian, A. S.(1), A. S.(2). (lom) (Entered: 03/26/2020)

04/26/2020 102 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Transcript (CV),, 43 , Notice of Filing Transcript 44 (Seffens, Sharon) (Entered: 04/26/2020)

04/26/2020

103 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 9-16-19 4:03 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Sharon Seffens, phone number sseffens@earthlink.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due

5/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2020. (Seffens, Sharon) (Entered: 04/26/2020)

04/26/2020

104 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 9-16-19 4:03 p.m. re Transcript 103 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Seffens, Sharon) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/26/2020)

02/09/2021

105 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 100 filed by Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Shima Montakhabi, Masoud Abdi, Behnaz Kavoosian, A. S.(2), Farshad Amirkhani, Parto Kavoosian, A. S.(1), Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, N. F.. CCA # 20-55325. Plaintiffs-Appellants, a group of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and their Iranian national visa applicant relatives, appeal the district court's dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because this case is moot, we dismiss the appeal. DISMISSED. Each party to bear its own costs. [See document for all details.] (mat) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

04/06/2021

106 MANDATE of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 100 , CCA # 20-55325. The judgment of this Court, entered February 09, 2021, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Each party to bear its own costs. [See USCA Order, 105 , DISMISSED.](mat) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

07/29/2021 08:25:06

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Woo Kee

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:19-cv-01417-JVSDFM End date: 7/29/2021

Billable Pages:

23

Cost:

2.30

 
 Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)

2019 WL 6841991 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, C.D. California.
Shamim DARCHINI et al, v.
Michael R. POMPEO et al
Case No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx) |
Filed 09/24/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
Curtis Lee Morrison, Law Office of Rafael Urena, Los Angeles, CA, for Shamim Darchini et al.
Joseph Anton Darrow, Aaron Kollitz, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Michael R. Pompeo et al.

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge

*1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65,

Iranian-American

families

and

couples

(together—“Plaintiffs”) moved for preliminary injunctive

relief ordering the United States Department of Homeland

Security, the Department of State, and their senior leaders

and consular officials (“the Government”) to adjudicate

Plaintiffs’ waiver applications. (Mot., Dkt. No. 8.) The

Government opposed the motion. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 28.)

Plaintiffs replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 31.)

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”). (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 2.). Plaintiffs allege that the Government, through unreasonable delays, has denied them timely adjudication of their case-by-case waivers under Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” which President Trump signed on September 24, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (“PP 9645”) (Id. ¶ 1.)1 Plaintiffs fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas, before their applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs allege that the Government has instituted patterns and policies causing these delays. (Id. ¶ 1.)
PP 9645 prohibits the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from Iran. (Id. ¶ 4.) But, it contains a waiver adjudication scheme, which works as follows. An Iranian visa applicant applies for an immigrant or non-immigrant visa and then appears at a U.S. Embassy in Armenia, the United Arab Emirates, or Turkey for an interview. (Id. ¶ 146.) The visa is denied under PP 9645. (Id. ¶ 147.) Then, consular officers adjudicate waivers of PP 9645’s entry restrictions based on information provided in the visa application and interview. (Id.) The adjudication is based upon whether the applicant would suffer “undue hardship if entry is denied,” whether “entry would be in the national interest,” and whether “entry would not pose a threat to national security or public safety.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that the Government has a “PP 9645 Brain Trust” team that has “secretly promulgated guidance on the waiver adjudication scheme” that is inconsistent with the text of the proclamation. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs allege that the Government, through this “Brain Trust,” has “unlawfully extended the authority and discretion - that PP 9645 granted only with individual consular officers - to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management and the Visa Office.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs allege that if an applicant is “found eligible for a waiver of PP 9645’s entry restrictions, the consular officer must seek to obtain concurrence from consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management and the Visa Office.” (Id. ¶ 148.) The Government requires this concurrence before the consular officer may issue the
1

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
applicant a visa, even though that usurpation of consular officer authority is unlawful under PP 9645. (Id.)
*2 As a result of this scheme, Plaintiffs allege, they “suffer a range of ongoing harms.” (Id. ¶ 6.) They have had to wait an average of 447 days for a waiver since their applications were refused, pursuant to PP 9645. (Id. ¶ 12; Table A at 34.)
Because the number of plaintiffs is sizable, the Court highlights just one representative account of their experiences with this waiver. Plaintiff Shamim Darchini is a United States citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Irvine, California. (Id. ¶ 19, 21.) Her husband, Amin Sirati, resides in Iran. (Id. ¶ 21.) Darchini petitioned for an “alien relative” visa for Sirati in 2015. (Id. ¶ 23.) Sirati had his visa interview in July 2017. (Id. ¶ 25.) Consideration of Sirati’s waiver has been pending for 592 days, since December 8, 2017, when PP 9645 took effect. (Id. ¶ 35.) Darchini suffers from stress, anxiety, and depression as a result of living apart from her husband. (Id. ¶ 30.)
On the basis of these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert three legal claims: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 and 706; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and for a writ of mandamus. (Id. ¶ 166-199.)
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction asks the Court to order the Government to complete its adjudication of the waivers within 15 days of the Court’s decision. (Mot. at 1-2.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
On an application for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 5, 20 (2008).
In the Ninth Circuit, the Winter factors may be evaluated on a sliding scale: “serious questions going to the merits, and a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction,

so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
Moreover, in the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff may meet this burden if it “demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “To reach this sliding scale analysis, however, a moving party must, at an ‘irreducible minimum,’ demonstrate some chance of success on the merits.” Global Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Arcamuzi v. Cont’l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Mandatory Injunction Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction. A mandatory injunction “orders a responsible party to take action.” Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 484 (1996). In general, mandatory injunctions “are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result” and are not issued in “doubtful cases.” Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1980). A mandatory injunction “goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo [p]endente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.” Id. at 1114.
B. Joinder *3 The Government argues that Plaintiffs are misjoined and should be severed before this case proceeds. (Opp’n at 9.) The Government suggests that Plaintiffs do not assert any right to joint or several relief and that their claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series thereof, nor do they present a common question of law or fact. (Id.) For this proposition, the Government cites Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F. 3d
2

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997), where the Ninth Circuit upheld the severance of plaintiffs who challenged delays in the adjudication of their visa petitions. In that case, “the mere allegation of general delay [wa]s not enough to create a common transaction or occurrence.” Id. at 1350. Here too, the Government argues that Plaintiffs “have all filed individual visa applications and waiver requests at different times and have suffered different lengths of alleged delay,” including delays pre-dating PP 9645, “and so any reason for delay hinges at least in part on additional legal circumstances.” (Opp’n at 10-11.)
Plaintiffs point out that in Coughlin, the plaintiffs “d[id] not allege that their claims ar[ose] out of a systematic pattern of events,” and “d[id] not allege a pattern or policy of delay in dealing with all applications.” 130 F. 3d at 1350. Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs allege that the Government is “designating the authority and discretion to approve case-by-case waivers to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management and Visa Office, which is unlawful under PP 9645.” (See, e.g., Complaint ¶ 1.) Thus, they allege that the delays they are experiencing arise from a “pattern or policy of delay” in dealing with their waiver adjudications, which meets the same transaction or occurrence prong of the test for permissive joiner. See Coughlin, 130 F. 3d at 1350.
Moreover, Plaintiffs meet the second prong of the test for permissive joinder because their Complaint presents common questions of law or fact. In Coughlin, the plaintiffs “d[id] not allege that Defendants ha[d] engaged in a policy of delay.” Id. at 1351. Here, Plaintiffs allege that the Government’s implementation of PP 9645 is “a common pattern or policy” affecting Plaintiffs who filed visa applications before and after the proclamation went into effect. (Reply at 2.) As Plaintiffs note, “their applications could only have made it to post-PP 9645 refusal administrative processing once consular officers determined that” they were otherwise eligible for a visa, so no “additional legal circumstances” are causing unreasonable delays, as the Government argues. (Id.)
The Court finds that joinder of the Plaintiffs is appropriate.
C. The Winter Factors

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
a. Availability of Judicial Review
The APA provides that “within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Thus, the APA authorizes a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1). But, the APA does not apply if a statute precludes judicial review or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” Id. § 701.
Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim because it authorizes legal actions like the instant one challenging unreasonable delays in agency actions. Plaintiffs claim that to state such a cause of action, they merely need to point to an agency’s failure to take discrete action that it is required to take. (Mot. At 18; see Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004)). Plaintiffs claim that PP 9645 mandates that the Government adjudicate waiver considerations, but has failed to do so within a reasonable time. (Mot. at 19.) In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the Government “do[es] not have the discretion to refuse to process, withhold decisions, or unreasonably delay Plaintiffs’ waiver consideration pursuant to PP 9645.” (Id.). Plaintiffs allege that the Government has failed to act within a reasonable time because it has “failed to adjudicate Beneficiary Plaintiffs visa waivers within 90 days,” although Plaintiffs offer no explanation for this particular deadline. (Complaint ¶ 166.)
*4 For this argument, Plaintiffs rely on Nine Iraqi Allies, 168 F. Supp. 3d at 293 n. 22, 295-96 (D.D.C. 2016), where the court held that plaintiffs had stated a claim for unreasonable delay in processing their immigrant visa applications. But, in that case, the relevant statutes required government agencies to process the visa applications at issue within nine months. Id. at 293. Thus, the court had “manageable standards” by which it could “assess the Government’s compliance.” Id. This case is unhelpful to Plaintiffs’ argument because there is no similar statutory directive here.
The Government argues that the President’s actions are not subject to APA review. (Opp’n at 12.) Because the waiver program “is governed by the Proclamation, a Presidential action,” the Government argues that PP 9645 may not be challenged under the APA. (Id.) The Government points out that PP 9645 states that it does not
3

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
create “any right or benefit, substantive or procedural” against the United States or its agencies and that “as a general rule, private parties may not privately enforce compliance with a Presidential Proclamation.” (Id. at 12-13.)
But, Plaintiffs are pursuing APA claims based on the theory that the Government is flouting its guidance regarding consideration of waivers and usurping consular officers’ authority to grant them. Thus, the Government’s argument is not relevant here. See Emami v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Further, the Government argues that the APA “does not permit review of waiver determinations” under 5 U.S.C. § 701, because the APA does not apply to agency action “committed to agency discretion by law.” (Opp’n at 13.) As the Government notes, PP 9645 commits the grant or denial of waivers to the “discretion” of consular and Customs and Border Protection officers. (Id., see 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168.) Thus, the Government argues, “[e]ven if the delegation of discretion were not expressly committed to another branch, there is no standard for a reviewing court to impose a timing requirement on this exercise of discretion.” (Id.) PP 9645 “provides no right for an individual to receive a decision on waiver application within any set period of time, nor does it expressly impose a duty that the waiver application be adjudicated at all.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs argue that the Government “d[oes] not have the discretion to refuse to process, withhold decisions, or unreasonably delay Plaintiffs’ waiver consideration pursuant to PP 9645.” (Mot. at 19.) In support of this argument, they point to the State Department’s “Operational Q&As on PP. 9645,” which states that “every applicant who is subject to the restrictions of the P.P., otherwise eligible for a visa, and to which an exception does not apply” “must be considered for a waiver.” (Mot., Docket No. 8, Ex. DDDD) (emphasis added).
The “must be considered for a waiver” wording in the State Department’s “Operational Q&A’s” suggests that the Government does not have discretion to never act on Plaintiffs’ waiver applications. Thus, the Court disagrees with the Government that there is “no law to apply” and that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability precludes judicial scrutiny. (Opp’n at 14-15.) Plaintiffs are challenging systemic practices with respect to the waiver program, not individualized determinations for any one of their specific applications. (See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 138,

170.) The Complaint alleges the Government is not abiding by its own guidelines and statements about case-by-case determinations of waiver applications, but instead implementing a policy of blanket denials, by depriving consular officers of the ability to issue waiver decisions. (See id). Thus, no review of any individual consular officer decisions is required; what is at stake is “the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion.” See Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, judicial review of Plaintiffs’ APA claims is not precluded.
b. Unreasonable Delay
*5 Plaintiffs argue that the factors laid out in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC v. FCC”), warrant a finding that the administrative delays they have experienced in receiving a waiver determination have been “unreasonably delayed.” (Mot. at 19-20.) To do so, this Court must balance factors including whether the time the agency takes to make its decision must be governed by a “rule of reason,” whether Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects to proceed in the enabling statute, whether “human health and welfare” is at stake, the “effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority,” and the “nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay.” TRAC v. FCC, 750 F.2d at 80.
Plaintiffs likely cannot succeed with their argument that the Government has violated the APA by subjecting their waiver adjudications to unreasonable delay, thus allowing the Court to compel review of their applications. The lack of a “rule of reason” to govern the timing of the waiver adjudication is the most relevant factor to this analysis.
“The reasonableness determination is a fact-specific inquiry,” and “length of delay alone is not dispositive.” Mugomoke v. Curda, 2012 WL 113800 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012). “Thus, courts have “look[ed] to the source of the delay-e.g., the complexity of the investigation as well as the extent to which the defendant[s] participated in delaying the proceeding.” Qureshi v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 2503828 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2012) (internal citations omitted).
4

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
Plaintiffs stated that a 90-day period should be the metric by which to judge the reasonableness of the delay in the Government’s adjudication of their waiver applications, with no justification for this time-frame. (Complaint ¶ 166.) They argue that they “have already successfully passed security checks” and that “an order by this Court mandating adjudication of [their waiver applications] within 15 days gives the Defendants more than ample time to complete its security determinations.” (Mot. at 21.) Plaintiffs also repeatedly assert that the Government can execute waiver considerations within “one business day,” but fail to support this allegation with evidence that would apply to their cases. (See, e.g., Mot. at 21.)
The Court is persuaded by the Government’s argument that this vetting process “is more difficult and time consuming for Iranian nationals because, the Presidential Proclamation explains, Iran does not adequately provide public-safety and terrorism-related information.” (Id. at 18.) As the Government argues, “any delay alleged is not unreasonable under the circumstances and certainly nowhere close to what would amount to an excessive delay under even domestic immigration processing standards.” (Opp’n at 17.)
The other TRAC factors do not tilt this analysis in the Plaintiffs’ favor. Although “human health and welfare” may be at stake for Plaintiffs who remain separated from their relatives and/or loved ones and Plaintiffs may have familial “interests prejudiced by delay,” they have not shown that “extreme or very serious damage will result” if a mandatory injunction is not granted. See Anderson, 612 F.2d at 1115.
Further, the Government has compellingly argued that the “effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority,” counsels against issuing an injunction, given that it has thousands of other waiver applications pending and sensitive national security and public safety determinations to make. (Opp’n at 20.)
2. Irreparable Harm Plaintiffs must demonstrate that irreparable injury is “likely” in the absence of an injunction; merely showing a “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Mandatory injunctions are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result.

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009).
*6 Plaintiffs argue that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction as a result of the unreasonable delay in the adjudication of their mandatory consideration for a waiver of PP 9645’s suspension of entry clause. (Mot. at 16.) First, Plaintiffs argue they suffer from trauma caused by family separation. (Id. at 16-17.) Second, Plaintiffs argue that “although adjudication of Plaintiffs’ pending waiver applications does not guarantee that a waiver will be granted, the indefinite delay of a decision prevents Plaintiffs’ ability to make appropriately informed life decisions like whether they should be pursuing third countries to legally reside and work, and escape the wrath of a U.S.-Iran military conflict, or to bring legal challenges to the Defendants’ final decisions.” (Id. at 17.) Finally, Plaintiffs argue that delay in receiving an adjudication of waivers “caus[es] a domino effect” to other waiver considerations, including causing criminal, medical, and security checks to expire, “creating an infinity loop of administrative processing.” (Id. at 17-18.)
The Government argues that Plaintiffs fail to show they will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. (Opp’n at 23.) As the Government points out, and Plaintiffs have admitted, “it is entirely speculative whether the Court’s entry of the preliminary injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek would result in their admission to the United States,” and “Plaintiffs acknowledge they have no guarantee a waiver would be granted, and that denial is also a possibility.” (Id. at 24.) Thus, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm if the Court does not provide injunctive relief.
3. Balance of Hardships Plaintiffs argue that the balance of equities and the public interest favor a preliminary injunction because it would “serve the public’s interest in maintaining a system of laws where the Government must comply with its legal obligations.” (Mot. at 24.) Plaintiffs suggest that their requested injunctive relief — that the Government complete adjudication of their pending waiver considerations within 15 days – constitutes a minimal burden on the Government. (Id.)
The Court is not convinced that requiring the Government
5

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)

to act on Plaintiffs’ waiver applications within 15 days would be a minimal burden, given the national security and public safety concerns at issue. At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of equities tips in its favor sharply enough to overcome the deficiencies in the other Winter factors.

preliminary injunction, given that they have not also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1134-35.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

IV. CONCLUSION

All Citations

Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6841991

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that “serious questions

going to the merits, and a balance of hardships that tips

sharply toward” their case support issuance of a

Footnotes

1

The claims of Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe, Siavash Koohmaraie, and Anahita Mehrani were rendered moot as they

received decisions on their requests for a determination of their eligibility for a waiver of PP 9645’s entry

restrictions. (Docket No. 35, Ex. A, Decl. Of Chloe Dybdahl.)

6

 
 Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 6872902
2019 WL 6872902 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, C.D. California. Shamim DARCHINI, et al v. Michael R. POMPEO, et al
Case No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx) |
Filed 10/03/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms Curtis Lee Morrison, Law Office of Rafael Urena, Los Angeles, CA, for Shamim Darchini, et al. Joseph Anton Darrow, Aaron Kollitz, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Michael R. Pompeo, et al.
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion for Sanctions
The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge *1 Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and their senior leaders and consular officials (“the Government”). Mot., Dkt. No. 36. The Government opposed the motion. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 39.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”). Complaint, Dkt. No.

1, ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the Government, through unreasonable delays, has denied them timely adjudication of their case-by-case waivers under Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” which President Trump signed on September 24, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (“PP 9645”) Id. ¶ 1.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction that would require the Government to complete its adjudication of their waivers within 15 days of the Court’s decision. Dkt. No. 8. The Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 42.
On September 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the present motion for sanctions against the Government, arguing that a sentence in the Government’s opposition to their motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 28) was “false,” meant to “intimidate” Plaintiffs, and asserted for an “improper purpose.” See generally, Mot.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify by their signature that (1) they have read the pleadings or motions they file and (2) the pleading or motion is ‘well-grounded in fact,’ has a colorable basis in law, and is not filed for an improper purpose.” Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1488 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). “[T]he subjective intent of the pleader or movant to file a meritorious document is” not relevant. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 830 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Cooter, 496 U.S. at 400. Instead, the Court must ask whether the “signed document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Zaldivar, 780 F.2d at 830. An action is not warranted where no “plausible, good faith argument can be made by a competent attorney in support of the proposition asserted.” Paciulan v. George, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1144 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Zaldivar, 780 F.2d. at 829, 833).
Under Rule 11, sanctions may be imposed “when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Estate
1

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 6872902
of Blue v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997). The cases warranting imposition of sanctions are “rare and exceptional.” Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). Finally, sanctions imposed under Rule 11 shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter “repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). Rule 11 sanctions may include an award for “reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
*2 Plaintiffs bring their motion based on the following sentence in the Government’s Opposition to their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction:
Indeed, were the Court to order the State Department to decide the waiver requests within the next two weeks, the State Department would likely deny the waivers on the ground that the national-security and public-safety vetting required by the Proclamation has not yet been completed.
Dkt. No. 28 at 24. This sentence appears in the Government’s argument that Plaintiffs had failed to show irreparable injury absent injunctive relief, because it was speculative that the Court’s entry of preliminary injunctive relief would result in their admission to the United States. Id. The Government argued that the Court should not direct the government “to short-circuit national security vetting.” Id.
Plaintiffs argue that this sentence constituted “retaliation” against them for bringing their mandamus action. Mot. at 3. Plaintiffs insist that because the Government has represented that it only takes “one business day” to adjudicate a waiver request, “this threat is audacious.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs argue that “if the Government’s] counsel is allowed to make threats to deny visas in mandamus actions, there is a chilling effect in the immigrant

community experiencing unreasonable delays of immigration benefits.” Id.
The Court denies the motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs repeatedly cite a January 24, 2018 email from the Visa Office, Dkt. No. 8-82 at 1, and a January 28, 2018 internal “Operational Q&As on P.P. 9645,” Dkt. No. 8-84 at 19, which state that a response from the Visa Office regarding waivers “can be provided in one business day.” But, the remainder of the sentence states that these responses can be provided in a single day, “provided that the Visa Office has all the information needed.” The Government suggests that this timing refers to “responses to questions on waivers from the Visa Office to consular officers,” not “the timing of the ultimate decision itself on the applicants’ waivers.” Opp’n at 4.
PP 9645 states that a waiver may be granted “only if a foreign national demonstrates to the consular officer’s ... satisfaction that ... entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety” of the United States. § 3(c)(i)(B), 82 Fed. Reg. 45161, 45168 (Sept. 24, 2017). As the Government notes, because a consular officer is not authorized to grant a waiver before national security vetting is complete, “requiring a consular officer to render a waiver decision before that no-threat determination has been made is likely to result in a denial.” Opp’n at 3.
With this context, the Government’s reasoning in its opposition to the preliminary junction motion does not suggest an improper purpose that would merit sanctions.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. The Court further finds that oral argument would not be helpful on this matter, and vacates the October 7, 2019 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6872902
2

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 6872902
3

 
 Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 7195621

2019 WL 7195621 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, C.D. California.
Shamim DARCHINI, et al v.
POMPEO, et al
Case No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx) |
Filed 12/03/2019
Attorneys and Law Firms
Curtis Lee Morrison, Law Office of Rafael Urena, Los Angeles, CA, for Shamim Darchini, et al.
Joseph Anton Darrow, Aaron Kollitz, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Pompeo, et al.
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss
The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge
*1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Michael R. Pompeo, Joel D. Nantais, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Daniel E. Mickelson, the U.S. Department of State, Kevin K. McAleenan, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“the Government”) moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Shamim Darchini, Amin Sirati, Parto Kavoosian, N.F., Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Ashkan Keshtmand, Tahereh Fereydouni, Manijeh Javdan, Samira Bayramzadeh, Mansour Hardanian, Elaheh Alikhan Zahdeh, Masoud Abdi, Shima Montakhabi, Navid Abdoullahzadeh, Mozhdeh Hafezibakhtiari, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, Farshad Amirkhani, Keyvan Parsa, Mahsa Mousaei, Arash Rafii Sereshki, and Bijan Rafii Sereshki’s (“Plaintiffs’ ”) Complaint. Mot., Dkt. No. 53. Plaintiffs1 opposed. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 56. The Government replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 63.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”). Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the Government, through unreasonable delays, has denied them timely adjudication of their case-by-case waivers under Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” which President Trump signed on September 24, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (“PP 9645”) Id. ¶ 1.
PP 9645 prohibits the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from Iran. Id. ¶ 4. But it contains a waiver adjudication scheme, which works as follows. An Iranian visa applicant applies for an immigrant or non-immigrant visa and then appears at a U.S. Embassy in Armenia, the United Arab Emirates, or Turkey for an interview. Id. ¶ 146. The visa is denied under PP 9645. Id. ¶ 147. Then, consular officers adjudicate waivers of PP 9645’s entry restrictions based on information provided in the visa application and interview. Id.
PP 9645 provides that “a consular officer, or the Commissioner, United States Custom and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s designee, as appropriate, may in their discretion, grant waivers on a case-by-case basis to permit the entry of foreign nationals for whom entry is otherwise suspended.” 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168. “A waiver may be granted only if a foreign national demonstrates to the consular officer’s or CBP official’s satisfaction that: (A) denying entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship; (B) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States: and (C) entry would be in the national interest.” Id.
Plaintiffs claim that they fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas, before their applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645. Id. ¶ 3.
1

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
2019 WL 7195621
*2 Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Proclamation “itself requires the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to adopt guidance establishing when waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals who would otherwise be banned.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that the Government has a “PP 9645 Brain Trust” team that has “secretly promulgated guidance on the waiver adjudication scheme” that is inconsistent with the text of the proclamation. Id. ¶ 8. The Government, through this “Brain Trust,” has “unlawfully extended the authority and discretion - that PP 9645 granted only with individual consular officers - to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management and the Visa Office.” Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have implemented a policy whereby, if a consular officer determines that an applicant meets the undue hardship and national interest requirements for a waiver, “the consular officer must email countries-of-concerninquires@state.com and include the facts they believe meet the undue hardship and national interest requirements” and receive guidance from the Visa Office on whether the waiver may be granted (i.e., whether the applicant satisfies the remaining national security and public-safety factor). Id. ¶ 134. Accordingly, if an applicant is “found eligible for a waiver of PP 9645’s entry restrictions, the consular officer must seek to obtain concurrence from consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management and the Visa Office.” Id. ¶ 148. The Government requires this concurrence before the consular officer may issue the applicant a visa, even though that usurpation of consular officer authority is unlawful under PP 9645. Id.
As a result of this scheme, Plaintiffs “suffer a range of ongoing harms,” including having their criminal status checks, medical examinations, and security advisor opinions repeatedly expire. Id. ¶¶ 6; 156. They have had to wait an average of 447 days for a waiver since their applications were refused, pursuant to PP 9645. Id. ¶ 12; Table A at 34. Plaintiffs allege that the Government has a “pattern and policy of unreasonable delay in dealing with waiver adjudication,” and “unlawfully crafted a waiver adjudication scheme that, in its application, leads to the ongoing untimely and unfair processing of case-by-case waivers.” Id. ¶ 11. From December 2017 to March 2019, only 5.1% of visa applicants subject to the travel ban were issued a visa pursuant to the waiver process. Id. ¶ 143.
Because the number of plaintiffs is sizable, the Court highlights just one representative account of their

experiences with this waiver process. Plaintiff Shamim Darchini is a United States citizen of Iranian origin who lives in Irvine, California. Id. ¶ 19, 21. Her husband, Amin Sirati, resides in Iran. Id. ¶ 21. Darchini petitioned for an “alien relative” visa for Sirati in 2015. Id. ¶ 23. Sirati had his visa interview in July 2017. Id. ¶ 25. Consideration of Sirati’s waiver has been pending since December 8, 2017, when PP 9645 took effect. Id. ¶ 35. Darchini suffers from stress, anxiety, and depression as a result of living apart from her husband. Id. ¶ 30.
On the basis of these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert four legal claims: violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 and 706; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and for a writ of mandamus. Id. ¶ 166-199.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to order the Government to complete its adjudication of the waivers within 15 days of the Court’s decision. Dkt. No. 8. The Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction on September 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 42.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
*3 Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility” if the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion under Twombly, the Court must follow a two-pronged approach. First, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Nor must the Court “ ‘accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’ ” Id. at 678-80 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Second, assuming the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. This determination is context-specific, requiring the
2

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 7195621
Court to draw on its experience and common sense, but there is no plausibility “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Justiciability At the outset, the Government argues that PP 9645 “merely governs Executive Branch processing and does not create privately enforceable rights,” and that “the APA does not provide a cause of action to these claims, which are textually committed to agency discretion and subject to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.” Mot., Dkt. No. 53 at 1.
The APA provides that “within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Thus, the APA authorizes a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1). But, the APA does not apply if a statute precludes judicial review or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” Id. § 701.
In general, “[a]s the APA does not expressly allow review of the President’s actions, we must presume that his actions are not subject to its requirements.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992). However, the Ninth Circuit has found that “under certain circumstances, Executive Orders, with specific statutory foundation, are treated as agency action and reviewed under the [APA].” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1166 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, “an executive order or presidential proclamation may also be subject to judicial review under the APA and treated as agency action when the order or proclamation ‘rests upon statute.’ ” W. Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 629 F. Supp. 2d 951, 965 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting Legal Aid Soc’y v. Brennan, 608 F.2d 1319, 1330 n.15 (9th Cir. 1979)).
PP 9645 was issued pursuant to INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2408 (2018) (finding that PP 9645 was a lawful exercise of the discretion granted by § 1182). As Plaintiffs’ Complaint

concerns the Government’s implementation of PP 9645, not the legality of PP 9645 itself, the Government’s actions are reviewable under the APA. Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2017) (“because these agencies have consummated their implementation of the Proclamation, from which legal consequences will flow, their actions are ‘final’ and therefore reviewable under the APA”), rev’d and remanded on other grounds by Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392; see also Najafi v. Pompeo, 2019 WL 5423467 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019).
*4 The Government argues that the President’s actions are not subject to APA review. Mot. at 8-10. And the Government points out that PP 9645 states that it does not create “any right or benefit, substantive or procedural” against the United States or its agencies and that presidential proclamations cannot be enforced against the Executive Branch. Id.
But as the Court earlier reasoned in denying Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs are pursuing their APA claims via the theory that the Government is not following its own guidance regarding consideration of waivers and usurping consular officers’ authority to grant them. Thus, the Government’s argument is not controlling here. See Emami v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Further, the Government argues that the APA “does not permit review of waiver determinations” under 5 U.S.C. § 701, because the APA does not apply to agency action “committed to agency discretion by law.” Mot. at 10. As the Government notes, PP 9645 commits the grant or denial of waivers to the “discretion” of consular and Customs and Border Protection officers. Id., see 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168. Thus, the Government argues, “even if the delegation of discretion were not expressly committed to another branch, governing law offers no standard to guide a reviewing court to impose a timing requirement on this exercise of discretion.” Id. at 11.
But Plaintiffs argue that the Government does not have the discretion to refuse to process, withhold decisions, or unreasonably delay considering their waiver requests pursuant to PP 9645. In support of this argument, they point to the State Department’s “Operational Q&As on PP. 9645,” which states that “every applicant who is subject to the restrictions of the P.P., otherwise eligible for a visa, and to which an exception does not apply” “must be considered for a waiver.” Opp’n at 10 (emphasis added).
3

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019)
2019 WL 7195621
The “must be considered for a waiver” wording in the State Department’s “Operational Q&A’s” suggests that the Government does not have discretion to never act on Plaintiffs’ waiver applications. Therefore, the Court disagrees with the Government that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability precludes judicial scrutiny. Mot. at 12-13. Plaintiffs are challenging systemic practices with respect to the waiver program, not individualized determinations for their specific applications. The Complaint alleges the Government is not abiding by its own guidelines and statements about case-by-case determinations of waiver applications, but instead implementing a policy of blanket denials, by depriving consular officers of the ability to issue waiver decisions. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 9, 134, 170-72. Thus, the Court is not required to review any individual consular officer decisions; instead, what is at stake is “the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion.” See Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, judicial review of Plaintiffs’ APA claims is not precluded.
B. Plaintiffs’ APA Claims First, the Government argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege unreasonable delay under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1). Mot. at 13. To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that the agency has a “discrete” duty to act and that the agency unreasonably delayed acting on that duty. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63-65 (2004). “[F]or a claim of unreasonable delay to survive, the agency must have a statutory duty in the first place.” San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877, 885 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, “there can be no unreasonable delay” where “the governing statute does not require action by a certain date.” Id. at 885-86.
*5 In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Government has failed to act within a reasonable time because it has “failed to adjudicate Beneficiary Plaintiffs visa waivers within 90 days,” although Plaintiffs offer no explanation for this particular deadline. Complaint ¶ 166. But in their Opposition, Plaintiffs do not address the Government’s arguments regarding the lack of a statutory requirement. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the Government has unreasonably delayed agency action it is required to take. Therefore, the

Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ first cause of action under §§ 555(b) and 706(1), without prejudice.
Next, the Government argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under § 706(2)(A) and (D). Mot. at 17-18.
The APA bars federal agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or is conducted “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (D). Plaintiffs claim that the Government’s alleged requirement that visa and consular section chiefs concur with consular officers’ determinations regarding waivers is unlawful under PP 9645. See Complaint ¶¶ 174-181.
The Government argues that Plaintiffs “point to no source of law prohibiting consular-officer consultation with supervisors or other State Department components or federal agencies in making the national-security and public safety assessment,” and that the Proclamation “does not define ‘consular officer.’ ” Mot. at 17. The Government further suggest that PP 9645 contemplates agency involvement beyond that of rank-and-file consular officers, because it provides for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to promulgate “standards, policies, and procedures for: ... determining whether the entry of a foreign national would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States,” as Plaintiffs note. See Complaint ¶ 7; Mot. at 18. The Government contends that individual consular officers could not have access to all of the intelligence and national-security information they need to make the waiver adjudications, and so the participation of other officials in the process is appropriate. Id.
Plaintiffs’ response is that the Government cannot “make up a new meaning” for the phrase, “consular officer.” Opp’n at 14. To this argument, the Government notes that the definition of “consular officer” in federal law “easily encompasses consular officers who are managers and supervisors beyond the one, single, regional, rank-and-file officer before whom an individual Plaintiff visa applicant executed their visa application.” Reply at 7; see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9) (“any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under authority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas ... ”) (emphasis added). The Court agrees with the Government that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the propriety of officials other than rank-and-file consular officers participating in the waiver
4

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 7195621
adjudication process do not plausibly support their substantive APA claim.
Plaintiffs do not otherwise provide any legal support for their contention that the waiver adjudication process is unlawful.2 The Court finds that their Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim under §§ 706(2)(A) and (D) and dismisses this cause of action, without prejudice.

non-citizen family members.” See Gebhardt v. Nielsen, 879 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation marks and quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs’ inability to allege a procedural or substantive deprivation of an interest protected by the Due Process Clause means their claim must be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice.

C. Fifth Amendment Claim *6 The Government argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a procedural due process claim, as a matter of law, “because their allegations do not support an inference that any protected liberty or property interest is implicated or that there is some additional process they are entitled to but have been denied.” Mot. at 18-19.
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But “an unadmitted and nonresident alien ... has no right of entry into the United States, and no cause of action to press in furtherance of his claim for admission.” Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion). Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that they have been denied due process or were owed additional procedural safeguards; their allegations regarding this claim are conclusory. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

D. Mandamus Claim The writ of mandamus is “intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he [or she] has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him [or her] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-17 (1984); see also Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he Supreme Court has construed a claim seeking mandamus ... in essence, as one for relief under § 706 of the APA.”) (internal citations omitted.)
Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the Government owes them a clear, nondiscretionary duty, the Court grants dismissal of this cause of action. The dismissal is without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION

As Plaintiffs do not directly allege such a deprivation, the question is whether they were deprived of “certain implied ‘fundamental rights’ ” that are understood to be included under the “liberty” prong. See Kerry v. Din at 2133.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel declined leave to amend; accordingly, the dismissal is with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiffs allege that their “fundamental rights” include

their right to the “integrity of the family unit.” See Complaint ¶ 192. They allege that the Government’s

All Citations

policies deprives them “of protected liberty and property interests without due process of law.” Id. ¶¶ 193-98. But

Slip Copy, 2019 WL 7195621

“the generic right to live with family is far removed from

the specific right to reside in the United States with

Footnotes

1

There were originally additional plaintiffs, but they voluntarily dismissed their claims on November 13, 2019. Dkt.

No. 65.

5

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2019) 2019 WL 7195621

2

Plaintiffs cite Emami v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2019), in arguing that their claims are

justiciable, but do not otherwise rely on the court’s reasoning regarding the sufficiency of their substantive APA

claim. In that case, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs had stated an APA claim because they adequately alleged,

with particularity and specific examples, that the Government had failed to adhere to its own guidelines regarding

the waiver program. See id. at 1019-21; see also United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).

6

 
 Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3051089
2020 WL 3051089 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, C.D. California. Shamim DARCHINI, et al v. POMPEO, et al
Case No. SACV 19-1417 JVS (DFMx) |
Filed 03/18/2020
Attorneys and Law Firms Curtis Lee Morrison, Law Office of Curtis Morrison, Huntington Beach, CA, for Shamim Darchini, et al. Joseph Anton Darrow, Aaron Kollitz, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Pompeo, et al.
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss
The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge *1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Michael R. Pompeo, Joel D. Nantais, Erin R. Hoffman, Dean M. Kaplan, Daniel E. Mickelson, the U.S. Department of State, Kevin K. McAleenan, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“the Government”) moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Mot., Dkt. No. 82. Plaintiffs1 opposed. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 84. The Government replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 86.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.2
I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“Petitioner Plaintiffs”) and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”). FAC, Dkt. No. 77 ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the Government, through unreasonable delays, has denied them timely adjudication of their case-by-case waivers under Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats,” which President Trump signed on September 24, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017) (“PP 9645”). Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also challenge the patterns and policies causing the withholding of waiver adjudications. Id.
PP 9645 prohibits the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from Iran. Id. ¶ 4. But it provides for case-by-case waivers from the ban for individuals who can “demonstrate” that denial of entry “would cause undue hardship, ... would not pose a threat to national security, ... and would be in the national interest.” Procl. § 3(c), 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168. Under PP 9645, “a consular officer, or the Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s designee, as appropriate, may, in their discretion, grant waivers on a case-by-case basis ....” Id.
Plaintiffs claim that they fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based or fiancée-based visas, before their applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645. Id. ¶ 3.
The Proclamation “requires the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to adopt guidance establishing when waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals who would otherwise be banned.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that the Government has a “PP 9645 Brain Trust” team, inconsistent with the text of the proclamation, that has “secretly promulgated guidance on the waiver adjudication scheme.” Id. ¶ 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have issued guidance that extends authority and discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudications to visa chiefs, and consular section chiefs,” and require “that for a consular officer to approve a waiver and issue a visa, consultation with consular management and the Visa Office is required.” Id. The Government, through this “Brain Trust,” has “unlawfully extended the authority and discretion - that PP 9645 granted only with individual consular officers - to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management and the Visa Office.” Id. ¶ 9.
1

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020)
2020 WL 3051089
*2 Requirements contrary to PP 9645, such as these that extend authority and discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudications, demonstrate Defendants’ pattern and policy of unreasonable delay in dealing with waiver adjudication, as well as actions that are arbitrary and capricious. Id. ¶ 10. As a result, the Beneficiary Plaintiffs have waited for travel ban waivers an average of 676 days since their applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs allege that they have been awaiting decisions on such waivers for between 14 and 25 months. Id. ¶ 22, 39, 45, 53, 61
Because the number of plaintiffs is sizable, the Court highlights just one representative account of their experiences with this waiver process. Petitioner Plaintiff Masoud Abdi is a Legal Permanent Resident and married to Beneficiary Plaintiff Shima Montakhabi, who lives in Iran. Id. ¶¶ 40, 42. He filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative for Montakhabi in late 2016. Id. ¶ 41. Consideration of Montakhabi’s waiver from the travel ban has been pending since March 29, 2018. Id. ¶ 45.
Defendants have implemented a policy that, if a visa applicant does not fit under one of the waiver examples, but the interviewing consular officer and consular manager believe that the applicant meets the undue hardship and national interest requirements for the waiver for other reasons, the consular officer must email countries-of-concern-inquiries@state.gov, staffed only by the PP 9645 Brain Trust and Quality Support, Inc. contractors, and include the facts they believe meet the undue hardship and national interest requirements. Id. ¶ 73. Only if the Visa Office concurs that a waiver may be justified, can the visa applicant receive a waiver of the travel ban. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that contractors working for Quality Support, Inc. informed Visa Office employees that they had sent “refusals” under PP 9645 “back to post.” Id. ¶ 77. These contractors, according to Plaintiffs, have been designated “to make adjudications of the national security and public safety prong of the waiver adjudication,” thereby usurping the authority and discretion of consular officers. Id. ¶ 79.
As a result of this scheme, Plaintiffs suffer a range of ongoing harms, including having their criminal status checks, medical examinations, and security advisor opinions repeatedly expire. Id. ¶¶ 6, 98. Some of the Plaintiffs in this action are stranded in third countries different from their national origin. Id. ¶ 100. Plaintiffs

also face economic hardship because of U.S. sanctions placed on Iran. Id. ¶¶ 102-03.
On the basis of these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert five legal claims: violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 and 706; violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; violation of Equal Protection, and for a writ of mandamus. Id. ¶¶ 109-154.
Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that Defendants’ waiver adjudication procedure is unconstitutional and that Plaintiffs’ waiver decisions have been unreasonably delayed, and to “order Defendants to adjudicate the Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ individual eligibility for waivers of PP 9645.” See Prayer For Relief.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to order the Government to complete its adjudication of the waivers within 15 days of the Court’s decision. Dkt. No. 8. The Court declined to issue a preliminary injunction on September 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 42. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on December 3, 2019. Order, Dkt. No. 73.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
*3 Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A plaintiff must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility” if the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion under Twombly, the Court must follow a two-pronged approach. First, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Nor must the Court “ ‘accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’ ” Id. at 678-80 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Second, assuming the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at
2

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3051089
679. This determination is context-specific, requiring the Court to draw on its experience and common sense, but there is no plausibility “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standing Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing “because they both fail to establish a non-conjectural, likely-to-occur injury and because any such injury is not fairly traceable to the national security and public-safety vetting procedure they challenge as unlawful.” Mot. at 10. Because thousands of waiver grants have already occurred, and nine of the original Plaintiffs in this case had their waivers adjudicated and were ultimately found eligible for waivers, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to establish their claimed injury is likely to occur. Id. at 11; see Fourth Declaration of Chloe Dybdahl (“Dybdahl Decl.”), Dkt. No. 82-1, Ex. A ¶ 5.
Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, the Court’s jurisdiction over the case “depends on the existence of a ‘case or controversy.’ ” GTE Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case or controversy” exists only if a plaintiff has standing to bring the claim. Nelson v. NASA, 530 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011). To have standing, “a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that their injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Nelson, 530 F.3d at 873.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims. Subsequent developments after Plaintiffs initiated their action – i.e., some of the former plaintiffs having their waiver requests adjudicated – are not relevant to this analysis. See D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008). And where,

as here, “the jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial.” Augustine v. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983).
B. Justiciability *4 The Government argues that PP 9645 “merely governs Executive Branch processing and does not create privately enforceable rights,” and that “the APA does not provide a cause of action to these claims, which are textually committed to agency discretion and subject to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.” Mot. at 2.
The APA provides that “within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Thus, the APA authorizes a reviewing court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1). But, the APA does not apply if a statute precludes judicial review or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” Id. § 701.
In general, “[a]s the APA does not expressly allow review of the President’s actions, we must presume that his actions are not subject to its requirements.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992). However, the Ninth Circuit has found that “under certain circumstances, Executive Orders, with specific statutory foundation, are treated as agency action and reviewed under the [APA].” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1166 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, “an executive order or presidential proclamation may also be subject to judicial review under the APA and treated as agency action when the order or proclamation ‘rests upon statute.’ ” W. Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 629 F. Supp. 2d 951, 965 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting Legal Aid Soc’y v. Brennan, 608 F.2d 1319, 1330 n.15 (9th Cir. 1979)).
PP 9645 was issued pursuant to INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2408 (2018) (finding that PP 9645 was a lawful exercise of the discretion granted by § 1182). As Plaintiffs’ Complaint concerns the Government’s implementation of PP 9645, not the legality of PP 9645 itself, the Government’s
3

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020)
2020 WL 3051089
actions are reviewable under the APA. Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2017) (“because these agencies have consummated their implementation of the Proclamation, from which legal consequences will flow, their actions are ‘final’ and therefore reviewable under the APA”), rev’d and remanded on other grounds by Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392; see also Najafi v. Pompeo, 2019 WL 5423467 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019).
The Government argues that the President’s actions are not subject to APA review. Mot. at 14-15. And the Government points out that PP 9645 states that it does not create “any right or benefit, substantive or procedural” against the United States or its agencies and that presidential proclamations cannot be enforced against the Executive Branch. Id. at 13.
But as the Court has already indicated, Plaintiffs are pursuing their APA claims via the theory that the Government is not following its own guidance regarding consideration of waivers and usurping consular officers’ authority to grant them. Thus, Defendants’ argument is not controlling here. See Emami v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Further, the Government argues that the APA “does not permit review of waiver determinations” under 5 U.S.C. § 701, because the APA does not apply to agency action “committed to agency discretion by law.” Mot. at 14. As the Government notes, PP 9645 commits the grant or denial of waivers to the “discretion” of consular and Customs and Border Protection officers. Id., see 82 Fed. Reg. at 45168. Thus, the Government argues, “even if the delegation of discretion were not expressly committed to another branch, governing law offers no standard to guide a reviewing court to impose a timing requirement on this exercise of discretion.” Id.
*5 But Plaintiffs argue that the Government does not have the discretion to refuse to process, withhold decisions, or unreasonably delay considering their waiver requests pursuant to PP 9645. In support of this argument, they point to the State Department’s “Operational Q&As on PP. 9645,” which states that “every applicant who is subject to the restrictions of the P.P., otherwise eligible for a visa, and to which an exception does not apply” “must be considered for a waiver.” Opp’n at 16 (emphasis added).
The “must be considered for a waiver” wording in the State Department’s “Operational Q&A’s” suggests that the Government does not have discretion to never act on

Plaintiffs’ waiver applications. Therefore, the Court disagrees with the Government that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability precludes judicial scrutiny. Plaintiffs challenge systemic practices with respect to the waiver program, not individualized determinations for their specific applications. The FAC alleges the Government is not abiding by its own guidelines and statements about case-by-case determinations of waiver applications, but instead implementing a policy of blanket denials, by depriving consular officers of the ability to issue waiver decisions. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 9-10, 18, 73, 113. Thus, the Court is not required to review any individual consular officer decisions; instead, what is at stake is “the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul’s discretion.” See Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, judicial review of Plaintiffs’ APA claims is not precluded.
C. Plaintiffs’ APA Claims
1. Unreasonable Delay The Government argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege unreasonable delay under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1). Mot. at 17.
The APA requires agencies to conclude matters presented to it within a reasonable time. 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (“With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it”). Under the APA, courts may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).
To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that the agency has a “discrete” duty to act and that the agency unreasonably delayed acting on that duty. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63-65 (2004). “[F]or a claim of unreasonable delay to survive, the agency must have a statutory duty in the first place.” San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877, 885 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). Accordingly, “there can be no unreasonable delay” where “the governing statute does not require action by a certain date.” Id. at 885-86.
4

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3051089
In considering whether agency delay is unreasonable, courts typically use the six factors endorsed by the Ninth Circuit in Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 1997):
(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a “rule of reason”; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.
*6 (citing Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). The most important is the first factor, the “rule of reason,” though it, like the others, is not dispositive. In re A Cmty. Voice, 878 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 2017).
Defendants contend that “Plaintiffs have not pointed to any statutory duty regarding waiver issuance or guidance on how quickly an agency must act on a waiver request.” Mot at 17. Further, Defendants note that PP 9645 “provides no timeline for waiver adjudication.” Id. Accordingly, Defendants argue that there is no “rule of reason,” governing the appropriate waiver determination period.
In the FAC, Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty ‘to conclude a matter presented to it’ ‘within a reasonable time,’ ” and have “failed to

adjudicate Beneficiary Plaintiffs visa waivers within 90 days.” FAC ¶ 109. But Plaintiffs provide no justification, statutory or otherwise, for this 90 day timeframe in their Opposition. Nor do Plaintiffs further address their unreasonable delay claim.
On this record, the Court determines that the lack of a “rule of reason” means Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that the delays in processing their waiver requests have been unreasonable under the APA. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ first cause of action under §§ 555(b) and 706(1), without prejudice.
2. Substantive APA Claim Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under § 706(2)(A) and (D). Mot. at 20-22.
The APA bars federal agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or is conducted “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (D).
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ requirement for consular managers, visa chiefs, and consular section chiefs to concur with consular officers for final waiver decisions is unlawful as this scheme was not authorized by PP 9645. FAC ¶¶ 118-121. In addition, Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants have “appoint[ed]” “non-DOS employees such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors as designees to adjudicate final waiver decisions.” Id. ¶ 122.
Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the propriety of officials other than rank-and-file consular officers participating in the waiver adjudication process do not plausibly support their substantive APA claim. Plaintiffs have not amended their allegations to sufficiently state a claim that the process described violates the APA. Plaintiffs simply do not provide any legal support for their contention that the waiver adjudication process is unlawful. Indeed, the definition of “consular officer” in federal law appears to encompass consular officers who are managers and supervisors, not merely rank-and-file consular officials. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(9) (“any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under authority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas ... ”) (emphasis added).
5

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3051089
Plaintiffs’ allegation regarding contractors is also conclusorily stated. The Court agrees with Defendants that the FAC “supports an inference that contractors are, at most, involved in transmitting information related to PP 9645 waivers—Plaintiffs have no support for their assertion that contractors are making the waiver decisions themselves.” Reply at 10.
*7 The Court finds that their Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim under §§ 706(2)(A) and (D) and dismisses this cause of action, without prejudice.
D. Fifth Amendment Claim The Government argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a procedural due process claim, as a matter of law because the FAC “fails to support an inference that any protected liberty or property interest is implicated or that there is some additional process they are entitled to but have been denied.” Mot. at 22.
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But “an unadmitted and nonresident alien ... has no right of entry into the United States, and no cause of action to press in furtherance of his claim for admission.” See Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion). Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that they have been denied due process or were owed additional procedural safeguards; their allegations regarding this claim are conclusory. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
As Plaintiffs do not directly allege such a deprivation, the question is whether they were deprived of “certain implied ‘fundamental rights’ ” that are understood to be included under the “liberty” prong. See Kerry v. Din at 2133.
Plaintiffs allege fundamental interests in family members’ ability to travel to the United States for the “integrity of the family unit.” FAC ¶ 133. They also claim that “the waiver process Defendants have implemented is inherently arbitrary and has deprived Plaintiffs of even the most minimal process that attaches to the statutory benefits conferred to them by Congress.” Id. ¶ 142.
However, “the generic right to live with family is far

removed from the specific right to reside in the United States with non-citizen family members.” See Gebhardt v. Nielsen, 879 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation marks and quotations omitted). A procedural due process analysis involves looking to “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards ....” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the arbitrariness of the waiver adjudication process do not sufficiently explain how they were owed additional or different procedural safeguards, and how the process as it currently is plead results in erroneous deprivations of due process rights.
Plaintiffs’ inability to allege a procedural or substantive deprivation of an interest protected by the Due Process Clause means their claim must be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice.
E. Equal Protection Claim Plaintiffs allege that “the irreparable injury and hardship caused by Defendants has denied Plaintiffs the same protection of fundamental rights afforded to visa applicants who had the arbitrary fortune to have their consular interviews scheduled for after early-July 2019, and thus benefit from Defendants’ new automated processing.” FAC ¶ 147. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have a history of discriminating against Iranians, and are therefore members of a suspect class. Id. ¶ 149. They allege that “[n]o rational basis exists for why Defendants are using an efficient automated process for adjudicating waivers for new visa applicants, but not using the automated process for adjudicating waivers.” Id. ¶ 154.
*8 Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that they, as Iranians, are being treated differently from immigrants of other nationalities; indeed, they allege that a new, enhanced automated screening and vetting process applies “for all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants subject to PP 9645.” Id. ¶ 96. Because the basis for the differential treatment Plaintiffs allege is when the new processing system went into effect – i.e., these Plaintiffs had their visa interviews before other applicants – the classification they assert is not a suspect class.
“If the statute does not involve a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, then ‘rational basis’ review applies, in
6

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020)
2020 WL 3051089
which a court must ask whether the statute is rationally-related to a legitimate governmental interest.” See Ball v. Massanari, 254 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Court finds that the screening process survives rational basis review. Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he new enhanced review is automated, occurs prior to the interview, and provides consular officers with the information required to make most P.P. 9645 waiver determinations much more quickly .... However, this is not the case with visa applicants like Beneficiary Plaintiffs, who have already had their interviews[.]” FAC ¶ 96. Before the automated review was available, “a post-interview security review by the interagency [sic] would occur “to resolve whether their entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety.” Id. ¶ 81. These allegations in the FAC, on their own, establish a rational basis for the differences in timing between the processing of Plaintiffs’ waiver applications and those that have been submitted more recently.
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs fail to explain how their alleged distinction, based upon when the automated processing system became available, involves a suspect classification or burdens a fundamental right. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss this cause of action, without prejudice.

F. Mandamus Claim The writ of mandamus is “intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he [or she] has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him [or her] a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-17 (1984); see also Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he Supreme Court has construed a claim seeking mandamus ... in essence, as one for relief under § 706 of the APA.”) (internal citations omitted.)
Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Defendants owe them a clear, nondiscretionary duty, the Court grants dismissal of this cause of action. The dismissal is without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Slip Copy, 2020 WL 3051089

Footnotes

1

Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on behalf of five families with six visa applicants. FAC, Dkt. No. 77.

Subsequently, Plaintiffs Arash Mansour Hardanian and Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh dismissed their claims (Dkt. No. 90) as

well as Arash Rafii Sereshki and Bijan Rafii Sereshki. Dkt. No. 83. The remaining Plaintiffs are Parto Kavoosian, N.F.

(Minor), Behnaz Kavoosian, Kiyoumars Kavoosian, Masoud Abdi, Shima Montakhabi, Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari, A.S.

1 (minor), A.S. 2 (minor), and Farshad Amirkhani.

2

The Court vacated the March 16, 2020 hearing and gave the parties an opportunity to submit a request for oral

argument. Order, Dkt. No. 97. Plaintiffs filed a request for oral argument (Dkt. No. 98), which the Court denies,

finding that a hearing in this matter is unnecessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

7

Darchini v. Pompeo, Slip Copy (2020) 2020 WL 3051089
8

 
 Kavoosian v. Blinken, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2021) 2021 WL 1226734

2021 WL 1226734 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Parto KAVOOSIAN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Antony J. BLINKEN,* in his official capacity as Secretary of State; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55325 |
FILED February 9, 2021
D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM, Central District of California, Santa Ana
Attorneys and Law Firms
Curtis Lee Morrison, Law Office of Rafael Urena, Venice, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joseph Anton Darrow, Esquire, Trial, Joshua Samuel Press, Esquire, Trial, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Aaron Robert Kollitz, Assistant U.S., USLA - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Antony J. Blinken, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State, Joel D. Nantais, in His Official Capacity as Passport And Visa Examiner of U.S. Department of State, Erin R. Hoffman, in Official Capacity as Member of U.S. Department of State’s PP 9645 Brain Trust, Dean M. Kaplan, in Official Capacity as Member of U.S. Department of State’s PP 9645 Brain Trust, Daniel E. Mickelson, in Official Capacity as Member of U.S. Department of State’s PP 9645 Brain Trust, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Joseph Anton Darrow, Esquire, Trial, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Aaron Robert Kollitz, Assistant U.S., USLA - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee United States Department of State.

ORDER
*1 The panel directs the Clerk of Court to enter the following order: Plaintiffs-Appellants, a group of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and their Iranian national visa applicant relatives, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because this case is moot, we dismiss the appeal.
Article III of the Constitution requires a case to present an actual controversy which is “extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Hamamoto v. Ige, 881 F.3d 719, 722 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “An appeal is moot if there exists no present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass’n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiffs-Appellants’ operative complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforcement of Presidential Proclamation 9645 (“PP 9645”), which created “enhanced vetting” and waiver procedures for visa applicants from certain countries, including Iran. Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (Sept. 24, 2017). PP 9645 has since been revoked. Proclamation No. 10141, 86 Fed. Reg. 7005 (Jan. 20, 2021). Accordingly, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ appeal presents no active controversy as to which this court could grant relief. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ argument that this case is capable of repetition yet evades review is conclusory, as they provide no evidence of a “reasonable expectation” that they will confront this controversy again. See W. Coast Seafood, 643 F.3d at 704. Indeed, the Proclamation which rescinded PP 9645 now directs visa processing to resume in a manner similar to that which Plaintiffs-Appellants seek in their operative complaint. 86 Fed. Reg. 7005.
DISMISSED. Each party to bear its own costs.
All Citations
1

Kavoosian v. Blinken, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2021) 2021 WL 1226734

Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2021 WL 1226734

Footnotes

*

Antony J. Blinken is substituted for his predecessor, Michael R. Pompeo, as Secretary of State. Alejandro N.

Mayorkas is substituted for his predecessor, Kevin K. McAleenan, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

2

 
 Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:1525

1 THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL UREÑA 2 Curtis Lee Morrison, Esq. (SBN 321106)
925 N. La Brea, 4th Floor 3 Los Angeles, California 90038 4 Office: (703) 989-4424
Email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

9

10

11 PARTO KAVOOSIAN; N.F. (minor); BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN;
12 KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN;

Case No. 19-cv-01417 JVS (DFMx)

13 MANSOUR HARDANIAN; ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH;
14 MASOUD ABDI; SHIMA

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR

15 MONTAKHABI; FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI;
16 S.A.(1)(minor); S.A.(2)(minor);

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

17 FARSHAD AMIRKHANI; ARASH RAFII SERESHKI; BIJAN RAFII
18 SERESHKI;

19
Plaintiffs,
20

21

v.

22 MICHAEL R. POMPEO, in his

official capacity as Secretary of State; 23 JOEL D. NANTAIS, in his official

24 capacity as Director of Domestic

25

Operations, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S.

26 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ERIN

27

R. HOFFMAN, DEAN M. KAPLAN, AND DANIEL E. MICKELSON, in

28

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 55 Page ID #:1526

1 their official capacity as members of

2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’s “PP 9645 Brain Trust”; U.S.

3 DEPARTMENT OF STATE; CHAD

4 WOLF, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;

5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

6 HOMELAND SECURITY; and DOES #3-#10, in their official

7 capacity as consular and other

8 officials employed by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

9

10

Defendants.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 3 of 55 Page ID #:1527

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1
3
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE…………………………………………...............5

5 PLAINTIFFS……………………………………………………………………....6

6
DEFENDANTS…………………………………………………………………..13
7
8 STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………….16

9

OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER ADJUDICATION

10

FOR IRANIAN NATIONAL IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS

WHO ATTENDED CONSULAR INTERVIEWS PRIOR TO THE

11

EARLY-JULY 2019 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATED

12

PRE-VETTING……………...……………………………………………23

13

CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER

14

ADJUDICATION SCHEME ON PLAINTIFFS…………………………27

15 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………….34

16
COUNT ONE: APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1)……………………………….34
17
COUNT TWO: APA, § 706(2)(A) and (D)……………………………………...36
18
19 COUNT THREE: MANDAMUS…………………………………………..........38

20 COUNT FOUR: PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS……………………………..40
21
COUNT FIVE: VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES 22 EMBEDDED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT…………………………………44
23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………....48
24
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………..51

26

27

28

iii

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 4 of 55 Page ID #:1528

1 2 3
4 EXHIBIT A
5 6
7 EXHIBIT B
8 9
10 EXHIBIT C
11 12
EXHIBIT D
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF EXHIBITS
April 11, 2018 Email from Quality Support, Inc. Visa Analyst Contractor Kunduz Jenkins to Angela Y. Kennedy, Foreign Service Officer at U.S. Department of State, letting her know PP 9645 refusals had been sent back to post
Sept. 9, 2019 Declaration of Joel Nantais, Director of Domestic Operations, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Sept. 24, 2019 Testimony of Edward Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs U.S. Department of State
Presidential Proclamation 9645 Monthly Public Reporting November 2019

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 5 of 55 Page ID #:1529

1

2

3

INTRODUCTION

4

5 1. This case challenges the U.S. Government Defendants’ withholding of case-

6

by-case adjudications of waivers of Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing

7

8

Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the

9

United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats. 82 Fed. Reg. 45161

10
(“PP 9645”). This case also challenges the patterns and policies causing the

11

12

withholdings, including Defendants’ usurpation of the authority and discretion

13

to approve case-by-case waivers from consular officers, and the designation of

14
that authority to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs,

15

16

consular management, the Visa Office, and even non-Department of State

17

(“DOS”) employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors, which is

18
unlawful under PP 9645.
19
20 2. Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents

21

(“Petitioner Plaintiffs”), other affected family members, and their Iranian

22
national immediate relatives who are visa applicants (“Beneficiary Plaintiffs”),
23

24

who through Defendants’ unreasonable delays, have been denied timely

25

adjudication of their case-by-case PP 9645 waivers. These unreasonable delays

26
impede the Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ ability to immigrate to the United States and
27

28

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 6 of 55 Page ID #:1530

1

have caused injuries to Petitioner Plaintiffs, Beneficiary Plaintiffs, and to the

2
United States.
3
4 3. Individually, Plaintiffs fulfilled all requirements to obtain family-based

5

immigrant visas, before their applications were eventually refused pursuant to

6
PP 9645 between 15 and 25 months ago (since PP 9645 was implemented).
7

8

Further, as Plaintiffs had already experienced unbearable burdens like travel,

9

costs, and other administrative delays – sometimes over a period of years -

10
before finally getting their visas denied under PP 9645, Plaintiffs’ injuries
11

12

caused by Defendants’ delays in adjudicating their waivers are even more

13

egregious and heartbreaking.

14
4. PP 9645 currently prohibits the entry of all immigrants and certain categories
15

16

of non-immigrants for nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen,

17

and provides for case-by-case waivers from the ban for individuals who can

18
“demonstrate” that denial of entry “would cause undue hardship, . . .would not
19

20

pose a threat to national security, . . . and would be in the national interest.”

21

Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (Sept. 27, 2017), §

22
3(c).
23

24 5. Sec. 3(c) of PP 9645 provides that “a consular officer, or the Commissioner,

25

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Commissioner’s

26
designee, as appropriate, may, in their discretion, grant waivers on a case-by-
27

28

case basis…” (emphasis added).

2

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 7 of 55 Page ID #:1531

1 6. Plaintiffs suffer a range of ongoing harms because of Defendants’ policies,

2
decisions and actions to unreasonably delay case-by-case waiver adjudications,
3

4

which includes extending an arbitrary and capricious authority and discretion

5

to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular

6
management, the Visa Office, and even non-DOS employees, such as Quality
7

8

Support, Inc. contractors.

9 7. PP 9645 itself requires the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland

10
Security to adopt guidance establishing when waivers may be appropriate for
11

12

foreign nationals who would otherwise be banned.

13 8. Defendants, through a team called the “PP 9645 Brain Trust,” have secretly

14
promulgated guidance on the waiver adjudication scheme that is inconsistent
15

16

with PP 9645 itself. To wit, Defendants have disclosed a requirement for

17

consular manager concurrence with consular officers on case-by-case waiver

18
adjudications. Further, Defendants have issued guidance that extends authority
19

20

and discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudications to visa chiefs, and

21

consular section chiefs. Finally, Defendants have represented that for a

22
consular officer to approve a waiver and issue a visa, consultation with
23

24

consular management and the Visa Office is required.

25 9. Collectively, this means Defendants, through the PP 9645 Brain Trust, have

26
unlawfully extended the authority and discretion - that PP 9645 granted only
27

28

with individual consular officers - to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular

3

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 8 of 55 Page ID #:1532

1

section chiefs, consular management, the Visa Office, and even non-DOS

2
employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors. Requirements contrary to
3

4

PP 9645, such as these that extend authority and discretion over case-by-case

5

waiver adjudications, demonstrate Defendants’ pattern and policy of

6
unreasonable delay in dealing with waiver adjudication, as well as actions that
7

8

are arbitrary and capricious. Consular officers are “charged with adjudicating

9

visas under rules prescribed by law…’" Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094, 1107

10
(9th Cir. 2018). The PP 9645 Brain Trust’s rules designating authority and
11

12

discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudication to people and departments

13

other than individual consular officers, are rules not prescribed by law.

14
10. Requirements contrary to PP 9645, such as these that extend authority and
15

16

discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudications, demonstrate Defendants’

17

pattern and policy of unreasonable delay in dealing with waiver adjudication,

18
as well as actions that are arbitrary and capricious.
19

20 11.Defendants have unlawfully crafted a waiver adjudication scheme that, in its

21

application, leads to the ongoing untimely and unfair processing of case-by-

22
case waivers for Beneficiary Plaintiffs, as well as the case-by-case waivers of
23

24

all visa applicants similarly situated, and visa applicants who have been denied

25

visas as a result of the unlawful waiver adjudication scheme.

26

27

28

4

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 9 of 55 Page ID #:1533

1 12. As a result of Defendants’ unreasonable administrative delays, Beneficiary

2
Plaintiffs have waited for travel ban waivers an average of 676 days since their
3

4

applications were refused pursuant to PP 9645.

5 13. Those days have been filled with unbearable hardships and a constant state of

6
distress that, absent intervention, will last indefinitely.
7

8

9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 14. This Court has jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361,

11

12

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13 15.Declaratory relief is authorized by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil

14
Procedure. The Court has further remedial authority under the Declaratory

15

16

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act

17

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq.

18
16.Venue properly lies within the Central District of California pursuant to 28

19

20

U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) because two Plaintiffs reside in this district, and

21

Defendants are officers and employees of the United States sued in their

22
official capacities.
23
24 17.Since at least one Plaintiff resides in the Central District of California, venue is

25

proper before this court for all Plaintiffs. Mosleh v. Pompeo, No. 1:19-cv-

26
00656-LJO-BAM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102765, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 19,
27

28

2019); Also see Californians for Renewable Energy v. United States Envtl.

5

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 10 of 55 Page ID #:1534

1

Prot. Agency, No. C 15-3292 SBA, 2018 WL 1586211, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

2
30, 2018)(ruling only one Plaintiff must reside within the forum district for
3

4

venue purposes, and collecting cases holding the same). Plaintiffs PARTO

5

KAVOOSIAN, and N.F. reside in Irvine, California.

6
18.Because Defendants administer a pattern and policy of delay in dealing with all
7

8

waiver adjudications, including the waiver adjudications for all Beneficiary

9

Plaintiffs, the connection amongst Plaintiffs is sufficient to satisfy permissive

10
joinder requirements. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d, 1348 (9th Cir.1997).
11

12

13

PLAINTIFFS

14
Parto Kavoosian Family
15
19.Petitioner Plaintiff PARTO KAVOOSIAN and Plaintiff N.F. are U.S.
16

17

Citizens and the daughter and granddaughter of Beneficiary Plaintiffs

18

BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN and KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN.

19

20.Petitioner Plaintiff PARTO KAVOOSIAN filed a Form I-130, Petition for
20

21

Alien Relative in 2017 for Beneficiary Plaintiffs BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN and

22

KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN and the NVC created a case for the petitions on

23

24

June 16, 2017.

25 21.PARTO KAVOOSIAN and N.F. reside in Irvine, California, while BEHNAZ

26

KAVOOSIAN and KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN reside in Tehran, Iran.

27

28

6

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 11 of 55 Page ID #:1535

1 22. BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN and KIYOUMARS KAVOOSIAN attended their

2
consular interview on January 18, 2018, at which time they were notified that
3

4

because of PP 9645, their visa applications and waiver had to go through

5

administrative processing. Their applications have remained in that status ever

6
since.
7
8 23.In November 2017, PARTO KAVOOSIAN gave birth to her baby girl, N.F.,

9

without her mother to help her in the delivery room. She was terrified, and all

10
she could do was wish for her mother’s presence. The delivery of the baby girl
11

12

was supposed to be one of the best days of her life, but instead, it was one of

13

the worst. PARTO KAVOOSIAN is desperate to be reunited with her parents.

14
24. N.F. is growing up quickly and her grandparents are being forced to miss it.
15

16 25.In addition to working fulltime, caring for a two-year-old at home, and

17

worrying about her parents, PARTO KAVOOSIAN is currently pregnant with

18
her second child.
19

20 26.PARTO KAVOOSIAN’s obstetrician has warned that the increased emotional

21

stress caused by separation from her parents “could adversely affect the

22
patient’s health as well as the health of her unborn child,” and that
23

24

“[r]eunification with her parents would greatly help her both emotionally and

25

physically.” Her obstetrician also notes “[s]he does not have any other family

26
living in close proximity to assist her.”
27

28

7

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 12 of 55 Page ID #:1536

1 27. As the three-year anniversary for filing her parents’ visa applications

2
approaches, PARTO KAVOOSIAN cannot help but to realize how tragic it is
3

4

that the family will never get this time back.

5 28.Considerations of BEHNAZ KAVOOSIAN and KIYOUMARS

6
KAVOOSIAN’s waivers have been pending for 720 days, since January 9,
7

8

2018.

9

10
Mansour Hardanian Family
11
12 29.Petitioner Plaintiff MANSOUR HARDANIAN is a U.S. Citizen and the wife

13

of Beneficiary Plaintiff ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH.

14
30.Petitioner Plaintiff MANSOUR HARDANIAN filed a Form I-130, Petition for

15

16

Alien Relative for Beneficiary Plaintiff ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH, and the

17

NVC created a case for the petition on March 21, 2018.

18
31. MANSOUR HARDANIAN resides in Boca Raton, FL, while ELAHEH

19

20

ALIKHAN ZADEH resides in Tehran, Iran.

21 32.MANSOUR HARDANIAN met ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH in 2012
22
through friends back in Iran. They started talking and they fell in love.
23
24 33.MANSOUR HARDANIAN married ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH on March

25

22, 2013, in Ankara, Turkey in a religious ceremony. They were issued a

26
religious marriage certificate that was unlawfully rejected by the U.S. Embassy
27

28

during ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH’s first consular interview on February

8

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 13 of 55 Page ID #:1537

1

23, 2017. They subsequently obtained a government-issued marriage certificate

2
and started the process all over again from scratch. Thus, they had already been
3

4

waiting since March of 2013 for an opportunity to reunite and live together as a

5

family. Thus, MANSOUR HARDANIAN has been maintaining two separate

6
households since March of 2013.
7
8 34. MANSOUR HARDANIAN’s neurologist has warned him that he is now at a

9

higher risk for stroke and that he must eliminate the stress from his life, but he

10
does not know how that is possible. He is worried sick for his wife. His
11

12

inability to do anything to expedite the process causes him to be frustrated,

13

which causes him to be angry and thus, his blood pressure rises, and that

14
concerns his neurologist and his family doctor as well. Currently, he is taking
15

16

blood pressure medicine on a daily basis. MANSOUR HARDANIAN’s

17

neurologist has also wrote a letter stating that having his wife with him, and

18
avoiding stress, would greatly benefit his health.
19

20 35.Additionally, MANSOUR HARDANIAN suffers from diabetes, so despite his

21

stress, he has to watch everything he eats.

22
36.For important occasions in their marriage, MANSOUR HARDANIAN buys
23

24

flowers at Whole Foods, and takes them home where he takes a photo of them

25

and sends the photo to his wife.

26

27

28

9

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 14 of 55 Page ID #:1538

1 37.In December, MANSOUR HARDANIAN was able to visit ELAHEH

2
ALIKHAN ZADEH for the first time in nine months in Istanbul, but the trip
3

4

was cut short because her grandmother unexpectedly passed away.

5 38.MANSOUR HARDANIAN is extremely depressed, and it is tearing him apart.

6
Things he used to do in the past, like exercise and cooking, he does not do
7

8

those things anymore because he no long has joy in his life.

9 39.Consideration of ELAHEH ALIKHAN ZADEH’s waiver has been pending for
10
468 days, since September 17, 2018.
11
12 Masoud Abdi Family

13 40.Petitioner Plaintiff MASOUD ABDI is a LPR and the husband of Beneficiary

14
Plaintiff SHIMA MONTAKHABI.
15
16 41.Petitioner Plaintiff MASOUD ABDI filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien

17

Relative for Beneficiary Plaintiff SHIMA MONTAKHABI, and the NVC

18
created a case for the petition on November 1, 2016.
19
20 42.MASOUD ABDI resides in Champagne, IL, while SHIMA MONTAKHABI

21

resides in Tehran, Iran.

22
43.MASOUD ABDI met SHIMA MONTAKHABI in February 2012 while
23

24

visiting his family in Iran, as he returned there periodically to care for his

25

mother’s chronic health condition. They had much in common, including that

26
they were both highly educated. SHIMA MONTAKHABI is famous in the
27

28

pharmaceutical field in Iran and has worked very hard in her career. MASOUD

10

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 15 of 55 Page ID #:1539

1

ABDI immediately realized that she was a very good person, and he fell in love

2
with her. They married five months later in August 2012.
3
4 44. MASOUD ABDI’s separation from his wife has caused him great hardship.

5

SHIMA MONTAKHABI is almost 43 years old and desperately wants to be a

6
mother, but her time for this is very limited. Every day, when they talk to each
7

8

other, she tells him how badly she wants to be a mother. It breaks MASOUD

9

ABDI’s heart that, due the travel ban, he cannot give her this wish.

10
45.Consideration of SHIMA MONTAKHABI’s waiver has been pending for 642
11

12

days, since March 29, 2018.

13 Fatemeh Karimi Alamdari Family

14
46.Petitioner Plaintiff FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI, is a LPR and the

15

16

wife of Beneficiary Plaintiff FARSHAD AMIRKHANI.

17 47.Petitioner Plaintiff FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI filed a Form I-130,

18
Petition for Alien Relative for Beneficiary Plaintiff FARSHAD AMIRKHANI,

19

20

and the NVC created a case for the petition on May 8, 2015.

21 48.FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI resides in Lexington, Kentucky, with the

22
couple’s LPR 14-year-old daughter Plaintiff S.A.(1) and LPR 11-year-old son
23

24

Plaintiff S.A.(2), while FARSHAD AMIRKHANI resides in Tehran, Iran.

25 49.FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI has been a LPR since January 2015, after

26
winning the Diversity Visa Lottery. At the time she applied for the lottery, she
27

28

was married to FARSHAD AMIRKHANI and they had children S.A.(1) and

11

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 16 of 55 Page ID #:1540

1

S.A.(2). However, when the family attended their interview at the embassy in

2
July 2014, they were told there was a glitch in the system and there was no visa
3

4

for FARSHAD AMIRKHANI. The family made the difficult decision to come

5

to the U.S., counting on the ability of FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI to

6
petition for her husband once they were here, which she did January 2015.
7
8 50.FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI has been raising their two kids in

9

Lexington, Kentucky, without her husband, ever since, and it has been really

10
hard on the family. Her children are always sad. They miss their dad.
11

12 51.In August, S.A.(1) started high school, and S.A.(2) started middle school.

13

These are important milestones that carry with them lot of anxiety, but the only

14
support and comfort their father, FARSHAD AMIRKHANI could offer them
15

16

was through video chat.

17 52.For half of 11-year-old Plaintiff S.A.(2)’s life, and a one-third of Plaintiff
18
S.A.(1)’s life, the children have been separated from their father.
19
20 53.Consideration of FARSHAD AMIRKHANI’s waiver has been pending for 753

21

days, since December 8, 2017, the day PP 9645 went into effect. However, that

22
does not tell the whole story because his consular interview was more than ten
23

24

months before that, on Jan. 24, 2017, and his original consular interview, for

25

which there was a glitch preventing him from receiving a visa, was in July

26
2014.
27

28 Arash Rafii Sereshki Family

12

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 17 of 55 Page ID #:1541

1 54.Petitioner Plaintiff ARASH RAFII SERESHKI is a U.S. Citizen and the son

2
of Beneficiary Plaintiff BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI, who is 73 years old.
3
4 55.Petitioner Plaintiff ARASH RAFII SERESHKI filed a Form I-130, Petition

5

for Alien Relative for his father Beneficiary Plaintiff BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI

6
and his mother, Ghazaleh Sharifi, and the NVC created cases for their petitions
7

8

on April 22, 2016.

9 56.When the couple attended their consular interview on February 23, 2017,

10
Ghazaleh Sharifi was issued a visa but her husband, BIJAN RAFII
11

12

SERESHKI, was not.

13 57.ARASH RAFII SERESHKI resides in Carmel, California, while BIJAN RAFII
14
SERESHKI resides in Iran.
15
16 58.BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI is lonely and depressed, as his entire family,

17

including his wife, lives in the U.S. He is totally alone. Even his nephews are

18
in the U.S. He is the last member of his family who remains in Iran.
19

20 59.It is difficult for BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI to miss being a part of his two

21

grandkids’ lives.

22
60.ARASH RAFII SERESHKI recognizes that the family can never get this time
23

24

that they have been separated back, and that makes him sad.

25 61.Consideration of BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI’s waiver has been pending for 753
26
days, since December 8, 2017, the day PP 9645 went into effect. However, that
27

28

13

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 18 of 55 Page ID #:1542

1

does not tell the whole story because his consular interview was more than nine

2
months before that, on February 23, 2017.
3

4

5

DEFENDANTS

6 62.Defendant MICHAEL R. POMPEO (“POMPEO”) is the Secretary of State.

7

8

Defendant POMPEO is responsible for implementing and administering PP

9

9645 in the U.S. DOS, including the waiver process created by Section 3(c) of

10

PP 9645. POMPEO is sued in his official capacity. By overseeing unreasonable

11

12

systematic delays, POMPEO is not applying the system of case-by-case

13

waivers that PP 9645 contains, calling the lawfulness of Proclamation itself

14
into question.
15
16 63.Defendant JOEL D. NANTAIS (“NANTAIS”) was a Passport and Visa

17

Examiner with DOS, but he is now employed as the Director of Domestic

18
Operations, Visa Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. On September 9,

19

20

2019, NANTAIS signed a declaration under penalty of perjury revealing that

21

consular officers do not have the discretion to approve case-by-case waivers of

22
PP 9645 because of what he called a “safety feature” in the software. See
23

24

Exhibit B. NANTAIS is sued in his official capacity.

25 64.Defendants ERIN R. HOFFMAN, DEAN M. KAPLAN, AND DANIEL E.

26
MICKELSON are DOS employees who are members of what Defendants call
27

28

the “PP 9645 Brain Trust.” They are the architects of the waiver adjudication

14

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 19 of 55 Page ID #:1543

1

scheme’s implementation in a manner that is both responsible for unreasonable

2
administrative delays, and inconsistent with PP 9645’s waiver provision. They
3

4

are sued in their official capacities.

5 65. Defendant DOS is a federal cabinet agency responsible for implementing and

6
administering PP 9645, including the waiver process created by Section 3(c) of
7

8

PP 9645, and the family-based immigrant visa program, including but not

9

limited to holding visa interviews; conducting administrative processing of

10
applications for family-based immigrant visas; making final decisions on the
11

12

issuance of family-based immigrant visas; issuing family-based immigrant

13

visas; and receiving, adjudicating, and making final decisions regarding

14
applications for waivers under Section 3(c) of PP 9645. DOS is a Department
15

16

of the Executive Branch of the United States Government and is an agency

17

within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). DOS is not applying the system of

18
case-by-case waivers that PP 9645 mandates, calling the lawfulness of
19

20

Proclamation itself into question. One component of DOS is the National Visa

21

Center (“NVC”), which arranges for interviews of Beneficiary Plaintiffs on

22
their visa applications.
23

24 66.Defendant CHAD WOLF (“WOLF”)is the Acting Secretary of Homeland

25

Security and is sued in his official capacity. WOLF is responsible for

26
administration of the INA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
27

28

15

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 20 of 55 Page ID #:1544

1

(“DHS”) and for overseeing enforcement and implementation of PP 9645 by

2
all DHS staff.
3
4 67.Defendant DHS is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government.

5

Its components include U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”),

6
CBP, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). USCIS’s
7

8

responsibilities include adjudicating requests for immigration benefits for

9

individuals located within the United States. PP 9645 assigns DHS a variety of

10
responsibilities regarding its enforcement.
11

12 68.PP 9645 states that “The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland

13

Security shall coordinate to adopt guidance addressing the circumstances in

14
which waivers may be appropriate for foreign nationals seeking entry as
15

16

immigrants or nonimmigrants.”

17 69.Defendant DOES 3-10 are the consular and other officials employed by the

18
DOS who are responsible for unreasonable delays in the waiver process created
19

20

by Section 3(c) of PP 9645, including but not limited to designating consular

21

managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management, and the

22
Visa Office with discretion and authority over the adjudication of waivers.
23

24

Their identities are not publicly disclosed by the DOS. They are sued in their

25

official capacities.

26
STATEMENT OF FACTS
27

28

16

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 21 of 55 Page ID #:1545

1 70.Issued September 24, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of PP

2
9645 in Trump v. Hawaii on June 26, 2018, in the context of challenges based
3

4

upon the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 66 Stat. 187, as amended,

5

and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision that also

6
lifted an injunction against PP 9645’s enforcement.
7
8 71.For Iranian nationals, entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants was suspended,

9

“except that entry by such nationals under valid student (F and M) and

10
exchange visitor (J) visas is not suspended, although such individuals should be
11

12

subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.”

13 72.PP 9645 provided some examples of circumstances when a waiver would be

14
appropriate, including example “(D)” in which all Beneficiary Plaintiffs in this
15

16

action fit:

17

“(D) the foreign national seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with

18

a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child, or parent) who is a United States

citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid

19

nonimmigrant visa, and the denial of entry would cause the foreign national

20

undue hardship;”

21 73.Defendants have implemented a policy that, if a visa applicant does not fit

22
under one of the waiver examples, but the interviewing consular officer and
23

24

consular manager believe that the applicant meets the undue hardship and

25

national interest requirements for the waiver for other reasons, the consular

26
officer must email countries-of-concern-inquiries@state.gov, staffed only by
27

28

the PP 9645 Brain Trust and Quality Support, Inc. contractors, and include the

17

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 22 of 55 Page ID #:1546

1

facts they believe meet the undue hardship and national interest requirements.

2
Only if the Visa Office concurs that a waiver may be justified, can the visa
3

4

applicant receive a waiver of the travel ban. These emails are mostly lost, with

5

consular officers rarely receiving responses from the PP 9645 Brain Trust and

6
Quality Support, Inc. contractors. This policy unlawfully usurps the authority
7

8

explicitly granted to consular officers in PP 9645 §3(c) and serves to defeat the

9

purpose and outcome of the PP 9645 waiver provision. This policy is well-

10
demonstrated by the blue box that is not redacted in DOS’ adjudicator
11

12

flowchart submitted in the certified administrative record on the PP 9645

13

waiver provision on June 13, 2019, in litigation in the Northern District of

14
California, Emami, et al. v. McAleenan, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01587-JD
15

16

(N.D. Cal. 2019). See below:

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 23 of 55 Page ID #:1547

1

2
74.On November 17, 2017, Katherine O. Ray (“Ray”), with Office of Field
3

4

Operations, Visa Services of Defendant DOS, forwarded an inquiry from Sean

5

Whalen (“WHALEN”) with the Office of Field Operations, Visa Services

6
about PP 9645’s implementation to a group she called “My PP 9645 brain
7

8

trust.” Members of the PP 9645 brain trust include Defendants ERIN R.

9

HOFFMAN, DEAN M. KAPLAN, AND DANIEL E. MICKELSON.

10
75.On December 13, 2017, WHALEN with the Office of Field Operations, Visa
11

12

Services, a division of Defendant DOS, sent an email about PP 9645,

13

announcing they would begin sending answers via countries of concern, adding

14
“I'll loop back to the brain trust if we need additional guidance/clarification on
15

16

any of them.”

17 76.On January 24, 2018, Defendant DOS employee Chloe J. Dybdahl, Attorney

18
Advisor in the Advisory Opinions Division, Office of Legal Affairs of the Visa
19

20

Office, Bureau of Consular Affairs, responds to an email with the subject line

21

“Iranian PP 9645 waiver case” from Jeremy P. Little, Consular Chief at the US

22
Embassy in Baku, by asking Visa Office employees she cc’d, including
23

24

WHALEN and the “countries-of-concern” email address, “do you have any

25

template waiver requests that could be useful to post?”

26
77. In an April 11, 2018 email, Quality Support, Inc. Syria/Lebanon Visa Analyst
27

28

Contractor Kunduz Jenkins, informs Visa Office employees, “we’ve sent today

19

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 24 of 55 Page ID #:1548

1

refusals under EO 171 for the following PP Waiver [Security Advisory

2
Opinions] back to post: [redacted information] Please let us know if you have
3

4

any questions.” See Exhibit A. Other redacted emails available in the DOS

5

FOIA reading room reveal Quality Support, Inc. contractors Ryan J. Huff,

6
Jenny Chang, and Joe Brown also adjudicating waiver requests.
7
8 78.Quality Support, Inc. contractors are not employees of DOS, therefore, they are

9

not consular officers in any context whatsoever.

10
79.Since Defendants designated Quality Support, Inc. contractors to make
11

12

adjudications of the national security and public safety prong of the waiver

13

adjudications, it is clear consular officers have been usurped of the authority

14
and discretion to make final case-by-case adjudications, powers designated to
15

16

them not by the State Department, but by President Donald J. Trump in the

17

plain language of PP 9645.

18
80.Defendants, through a team called the “PP 9645 Brain Trust,” have
19

20

promulgated guidance on the waiver adjudication scheme that is inconsistent

21

with the PP 9645 itself because it allows for nonconsular officers to make case-

22
by-case waiver adjudications. In addition to the evidence cited above
23

24

demonstrating that a Quality Support, Inc. contractor refused multiple waivers,

25

in a February 22, 2018 letter from Defendant DOS to Senator Chris Van Hollen

26
(“Van Hollen Letter”), Defendants disclosed a requirement for consular
27

28

1 “EO 17” is the refusal code for PP 9645 refusals.

20

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 25 of 55 Page ID #:1549

1

manager concurrence with consular officers on visa waiver adjudications.

2
Further, Defendant DOS’s “Operational Q&As on P.P. 9645,” released
3

4

pursuant to a request through the Freedom of Information Act, also extends

5

authority and discretion over case-by-case waiver adjudications to visa chiefs,

6
and consular section chiefs. Also, in an April 11, 2019 “Department of
7

8

State/AILA Liaison Committee Meeting,” Defendant represented that for a

9

consular officer to approve a waiver and issue an applicant a visa, consultation

10
with consular management and the Visa Office is required. Collectively, this
11

12

means Defendants have unlawfully extended the authority and discretion that

13

PP 9645 granted only with individual consular officers to consular managers,

14
visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management, the Visa Office, and
15

16

even non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors.

17 81.On July 8, 2019, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of

18
Legislative Affairs, DOS, sent a letter to U.S. Representative Ami Bera,
19

20

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Foreign

21

Affairs, via a letter confirming that “consular officers confer with both a

22
consular manager and the Visa Office’s Office of Field Operations prior to
23

24

issuing a waiver, to facilitate uniform implementation.” The letter also

25

confirmed that “(Defendant DOS) determined that, until an automated

26
enhanced screening and vetting process could be put in place, applicants for
27

28

visas subject to PP 9645 who are being considered for a waiver under Section

21

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 26 of 55 Page ID #:1550

1

3(c) of the Proclamation should undergo a post-interview security review by

2
the interagency (sic) to resolve whether their entry would not pose a threat to
3

4

the national security or public safety.” The letter did not define “the

5

interagency.”

6
82.According to a report called Presidential Proclamation 9645 Monthly Public
7

8

Reporting -November 2019, between December 8, 2017 and November 30,

9

2019, 45,778 nonimmigrant visa applications and 31,534 immigrant visa

10
applications (for a total of 77,312 visa applicants) were refused under PP
11

12

9645. See Exhibit D.

13 83. According to that same report, in that same period, Iranian nationals accounted

14
for 27,250 of the nonimmigrant visa applications refused, and 13,986
15

16

immigrant visa applications refused. That means 35% of the total visa

17

applications affected by PP 9645 affect the visa applications of Iranian

18
nationals. However, for the refusal of immigrant visas, the percentage of
19

20

Iranian nationals affected by PP 9645 is over 44% of the total affected in all

21

eight countries. See Exhibit D.

22
84.From December 8, 2017 to November 30, 2019, Defendant DOS issued only
23

24

2,610 immigrant visas to Iranian nationals. See Exhibit D.

25 85.As of November 30, 2019, there were 10,625 immigrant applications in the

26
backlog from Iranian nationals, which makes up over 64% of the total 16,439
27

28

immigrant visa applications in the backlog. See Exhibit D.

22

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 27 of 55 Page ID #:1551

1 Overview of Defendants’ Waiver Adjudication Scheme for Iranian National 2 Immigrant Visa Applicants Who Attended Consular Interviews Prior to the
early-July 2019 Implementation of Automated Pre-Vetting
3

4
86.The Iranian national immigrant visa applicant applies for a visa, and then
5

6

appears for an interview at a U.S. Embassy for an interview. Since the U.S.

7

Embassy in Iran has been closed since 1979, Iranian national visa applicants

8
must travel to Armenia, United Arab Emirates, or Turkey for visa interviews.
9
10 87.Provided the Iranian national visa applicant otherwise qualifies for the visa, the

11

consular officer refuses the visa application of the Iranian national in

12
accordance with PP 9645. The consular office then enters the refusal code
13

14

“EO17” in the Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) database. This

15

refusal, however, is only part of the process as PP 9645 provides that consular

16
officers adjudicate waivers of PP 9645’s entry restrictions as part of the visa
17

18

application process based on information provided in the standard visa

19

application and in-person interview of the applicant. That adjudication is based

20
upon three criteria:
21

22

(1) undue hardship if entry is denied;

(2) entry would be in the national interest; and

23

(3) entry would not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

24
88.Based upon these criteria, a consular officer then finds an Iranian national visa
25

26

applicant eligible or ineligible for a waiver. If found eligible for a waiver of PP

27

9645’s entry restrictions, the consular officer has the applicant complete a

28
Form DS-5535 to collect information, including the applicant’s use of social

23

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 28 of 55 Page ID #:1552

1

media. At that point, the consular officer must then seek to obtain concurrence

2
from consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular
3

4

management and the Visa Office. Defendants require this concurrence before

5

the consular officer is allowed to issue the applicant a visa, even though that

6
usurpation of consular officer authority is unlawful under PP 9645.
7
8 89.If the consular officer finds that a visa applicant’s situation does not fit within

9

one of the examples provided in the text of PP 9645, Defendant DOS, through

10
its Visa Office, instructs consular officers to provide it information about a visa
11

12

applicant’s undue hardship, national interest, and identity and criminal history

13

concerns, and that they can count on a Visa Office's response “within one

14
business day…” In cases where additional information is needed or if a case
15

16

requires further discussion with other offices and agencies, including

17

consultation with the PP 9645 Brain Trust, the Visa Office warns that its

18
response "could take a week or more.”
19

20 90.If found ineligible for a waiver of PP 9645’s entry restrictions, the consular

21

officer may, upon reconsideration, and concurrence from consular managers,

22
visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and/or consular management the Visa
23

24

Office, and even non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc.

25

contractors (pursuant to Defendants’ implementation of PP 9645 waiver

26
provision), find the applicant eligible for a waiver of PP 9645’s entry
27

28

restrictions and issue the applicant a visa.

24

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 29 of 55 Page ID #:1553

1 91.Defendants represent that waiver adjudication eligibility is automatic.

2
Defendants also represent that waiver adjudication eligibility is not
3

4

automatic. In the Van Hollen Letter, DOS states that in order to be considered

5

for a waiver, visa applicants must meet the criteria for a waiver. Under that

6
representation, all applicants who are under waiver consideration have already
7

8

been found by a consular officer to meet all criteria for a waiver, and the only

9

fruit of further administrative processing is unreasonable administrative delay.

10
92.Defendants have unlawfully extended the authority and discretion that PP 9645
11

12

granted only with individual consular officers to: consular managers, visa

13

chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management, the Visa Office, and

14
even non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors.
15

16 93.As consular officers typically want to issue visas, especially to women,

17

children, the elderly, and families experiencing hardship - all of whom have

18
already been vetted to get to the consular interview stage- this unlawful and
19

20

unnecessary usurpation of consular officer authority and discretion

21

demonstrates how and why the travel ban itself is a boondoggle of a

22
government program that, absent judicial interference, will continue to cause
23

24

senseless irreparable injuries to American families.

25 94.When Defendants do adjudicate PP 9645 waivers, which belies the norm, they

26
do not adjudicate them in order, as they do with other immigration benefits. In
27

28

fact, on November 12, 2019, Defendants, through Department of Justice

25

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 30 of 55 Page ID #:1554

1

counsel Joseph A. Darrow, admitted “Defendants were employing a figure of

2
speech and did not, of course, mean that every waiver applicant had been
3

4

assigned one specific number in line and that Defendants were proceeding

5

number by number, as if at a deli counter.”

6
95.On July 18, 2019, the Foreign Affairs Manual, section 9 FAM 302.14-10(E)(2),
7

8

was updated giving consular officers five specific instructions again usurping

9

their authority and discretion to adjudicate case-by-case waivers, even after the

10
Visa Office has concurred that those waivers may be justified. Defendants have
11

12

kept these instructions secret from visa applicants subject to PP 9645, as well

13

as the general public, by redacting them when released by asserting law

14
enforcement privilege. See below.
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 31 of 55 Page ID #:1555

1 96.In early July 2019, Defendants DOS implemented a new enhanced automated

2
screening and vetting process for all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa
3

4

applicants subject to the Proclamation. The new enhanced review is automated,

5

occurs prior to the interview, and provides consular officers with the

6
information required to make most P.P. 9645 waiver determinations much
7

8

more quickly. It is now possible that many cases may be issued within days of

9

the application, should the security check done prior to the interview not show

10
any concerns – once the consular officer has established all three criterion of
11

12

the waiver, the visa may be issued. However, this is not the case with visa

13

applicants like Beneficiary Plaintiffs, who have already had their interviews,

14
and are not benefitting from the automated system. See Exhibit C, at 3.
15

16

Consequences of Defendants’ Waiver Adjudication Scheme on Plaintiffs

17 97.As a direct result of Defendants’ PP 9645 waiver adjudication scheme,

18
Beneficiary Plaintiffs in this action have waited unreasonable amounts of time,
19

20

from 468 up to 753 days, for the adjudication of their waivers. See Table A,

21

below.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 32 of 55 Page ID #:1556

1 Table A

2

U.S. CITIZEN OR LEGAL

3

PERMANENT RESIDENT PETITIONER

4

IRANIAN NATIONAL BENEFICIARIES

DATE CASE CREATED BY
NVC (per CEAC
website)

5

Parto

Behnaz Kavoosian; 16-JUNE-2017

Kavoosian

Kiyoumars Kavoosian

&

6

16-JUN-2017

7

Mansour Hardanian

Elaheh Alikhan Zadeh 21-MAR-2018

DATE VISA REFUSED UNDER PP 9645
09-JAN-2018 17-SEP-2018

DAYS AWAITING
WAIVER ADJUDICATION
(as of Dec. 30, 2019)
720 720
468

8

Masoud Abdi

Shima Montakhabi 01-NOV-2016

29-MAR-2018

642

9

10

Fatemeh Karimi

Farshad Amirkhani 08-MAY-2015

08-DEC-2017

753

Alamdari

*

11

Arash Rafii Sereshki

Bijan Rafii Sereshki 22-APR-2016

08-DEC-2017

753

12

**

13 *FARSHAD AMIRKHANI’s consular interview was Jan. 24, 2017, but PP 9645 was technically not implemented until December 08, 2017.
14 ** BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI’s consular interview was Feb. 23, 2017, but PP 9645 was technically
not implemented until December 08, 2017.
15 -

16
98.As a result of Defendants’ withholding of adjudications of travel ban waivers,
17

18

visa applicants, and all Beneficiary Plaintiffs in this action, suffer unreasonable

19

hardship as their criminal status checks, medical examinations, and security

20
advisor opinions perpetually expire during the post-refusal administrative
21

22

processing. This perverse outcome leads to visa applicants, including Plaintiffs

23

in the action, repeatedly incurring expenses for no good reason.

24
99.In the statistically unlikely event that stars align so that all the parties
25

26

unlawfully designated by Defendants with authority over waiver adjudication

27

concur that an applicant is deserving of a waiver, that applicant must act

28
quickly because, of course, the waivers themselves expire as well.

28

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 33 of 55 Page ID #:1557

1 100. As a result of Defendants’ unreasonable administrative delays in the

2
adjudication of travel ban waivers, Iranian nationals visa applicants, including
3

4

some of the Plaintiffs in this action, are stranded in third countries different

5

from their national origin. The cost of maintaining a separate residence in a

6
foreign country is financially draining on Plaintiffs.
7
8 101. As a result of Defendants’ unreasonable administrative delays in the

9

adjudication of their waiver, Plaintiffs have faced severe familial hardships.

10
For example, Plaintiffs MASOUD ABDI and SHIMA MONTAKHABI dream
11

12

of starting a family, but she is 42 years old and the window for their dream is

13

closing. In another example, Beneficiary Plaintiff BIJAN RAFII SERESHKI,

14
who is 73 years old, continues to be separated from his wife of many years,
15

16

because following their consular interview on February 23, 2017, her visa was

17

issued while his went into administrative processing. In another example,

18
Plaintiff MANSOUR HARDANIAN married his wife in 2013 and they have
19

20

waited nearly SEVEN years to be together. In another example, Plaintiff N.F.

21

is now two years old and she still has not met her grandparents in person.

22
102. As a result of Defendants’ unreasonable administrative delays in the
23

24

adjudication of their waiver, Plaintiffs have faced all kinds of severe economic

25

hardship. For example, Plaintiff MASOUD ABDI is limited in how he can

26
assist his wife financially because of U.S. sanctions.
27

28

29

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 34 of 55 Page ID #:1558

1 103. Beneficiary Plaintiffs have faced a uniquely severe economic hardship

2
because, unlike most families on earth, their loved ones in the United States are
3

4

prohibited from giving them financial assistance due to the sanctions against

5

Iran.

6
104. Plaintiffs have also faced severe economic hardship for the costs of
7

8

visiting each other as a substitute for reunification. However, because of the

9

expense of a visit for their family, FATEMEH KARIMI ALAMDARI, SA.(1),

10
and S.A.(2), who have been separated from FARSHAD AMIRKHANI, her
11

12

husband and their father, since 2014, have only been able to afford one short

13

visit in the summer of 2015, nearly five years ago.

14
105. Further, since Iran is so dangerous for U.S. citizens and, in fact,
15

16

Defendant DOS advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Iran, many of Plaintiffs’

17

family visits were in other countries, further exacerbating Plaintiffs’ hardship.

18
For example, Plaintiff MANSOUR HARDANIAN has spent between $7,000-
19

20

$8,000 on each visit with his wife in third countries such as Turkey, and that is

21

for trips of only a couple weeks in duration at most. MANSOUR

22
HARDANIAN says the beginning of the visits are great, but the end, when he
23

24

must leave the airport without his wife, there is sadness and he is devastated.

25 106. Plaintiffs have also faced economic hardship in the form of missed

26
opportunities. For example, Plaintiff MASOUD ABDI has not had the time or
27

28

energy to continue his professional education as a physician and study for other

30

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 35 of 55 Page ID #:1559

1

exams and certifications to further his career. He is working 10 to 12 hours a

2
day without days off to support two households and pay for expenses incurred
3

4

as a result of Defendants’ withholding of his wife’s waiver adjudication.

5 107. If not for Defendants’ unreasonable delays, Plaintiffs would not be

6
suffering their current state of anxiety connected to the active conflict between
7

8

the United States and Iran. While Plaintiffs have awaited their PP 9645 waiver

9

adjudication, the conflict between the U.S. and Iran continues to escalate,

10
amplifying Plaintiffs’ anxiety. Sample moments of anxiety-causing
11

12

escalation include:

13

• May 8, 2018: President Trump announces that the U.S. will pull out of the Iran

nuclear deal.

14

• August 2018: U.S. implements sanctions against Iran.

15

• November 2018: U.S. implements more sanctions against Iran.

• April 8, 2019: the President designates the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

16

• April 2019: U.S. implements more sanctions against Iran.

• May 5, 2019: National Security Adviser John Bolton issues a statement referring to

17

impending Iranian attacks and announces U.S. aircraft carrier is en route to the

region.

18

• May 8, 2019: On the anniversary of Trump’s withdrawal of Iran nuclear deal, Iran

19

announces it will increase uranium production.

• May 9, 2019: Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presents plans for 120,000

20

U.S. troops to be deployed to the Middle East in the event of an Iranian attack.

• May 10, 2019: The U.S. sends additional military hardware, including a warship, to

21

the Middle East.

22

• May 12, 2019: Four oil tankers — two Saudi, one Emirati, one Norwegian — are attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. later accuses Iran.

23

• May 14, 2019: Armed drones strike two Saudi pumping stations. Houthi rebels

operating in Yemen, who the U.S. alleges are backed by Iran, claim responsibility.

24

• May 15, 2019: The U.S. orders a partial evacuation of its embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

• June 13, 2019: Two tankers, one Norwegian and one Japanese, are struck near the

25

Strait of Hormuz. In a statement, Defendant POMPEO bundles the attack with four

26

incidents he alleges were carried out by surrogates, declaring they collectively “present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the

27

freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.”

• June 17, 2019: Iran announces that it will breach uranium enrichment levels under

28

the 2015 deal in 10 days.

31

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 36 of 55 Page ID #:1560

1

• June 17, 2019: The U.S. announces it will send an additional 1,000 troops to the

Middle East.

2

• June 20, 2019: Iran shoots down a U.S. drone it says was in its airspace. The U.S.

3

provides evidence it was over international waters. • June 20, 2019: Trump tweets “Iran made a very big mistake!” He then approves

4

strikes "on a handful of Iranian targets" but calls them off at the last minute.

• June 21, 2019: Iranian officials tell Reuters they received a message from Trump

5

warning of impending U.S. attacks and seeking dialogue as Trump confirms he felt

the planned strikes were "not proportionate."

6

• June 24, 2019: President Trump announces new sanctions and tells reporters that he

7

did not need congressional consent for an initial strike on Iran. • June 28, 2019: U.S. deploys nearly a dozen F-22 Raptor fighter jets to Qatar to

8

"defend American forces and interests".

• July 16, 2019: U.S. announces it will send another 1,000 troops to the Middle East to

9

counter Tehran, adding to the many thousands already in the region.

• July 18, 2019: U.S. claims to have taken defensive action against a drone in the

10

Persian Gulf, but Iran denies any of the country’s drones were brought down.

11

• July 19, 2019: Saudi King Salman approves hosting US Armed Forces in the

Kingdom.

12

• July 20, 2019: Iran seizes British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

• July 21, 2019: Brazil, pursuant to stranglehold sanctions imposed by the U.S.,

13

refuses to refuel ships picking up grain from Brazil, stranding both the ships, and the

grain from the people who need it.

14

• August 16, 2019: US files complaint for forfeiture of oil aboard Iranian tanker Grace

15

I in U.S. District Court for District of Columbia.

• Sept. 14, 2019: Defendant Secretary of State Pompeo blames Iran for armed drone

16

attacks on Saudi Arabia’s massive Abqaiq oil processing facility, even though

Yemen's Houthi rebels took responsibility, and sources suggest support for the attack

17

originated in Iraq, not Iran.

18

• Sept. 18, 2019 President Trump tweets that he “just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!”

19

• Oct. 11, 2019 Following two missiles hitting an Iranian oil tanker near the Saudi port

of Jeddah, the Pentagon announces an additional 1,800 troops will be sent to Saudi

20

Arabia, bringing the total number deployed within last month to 3,000 troops.

• Nov. 17, 2019 Following protests over Iran’s 50 percent increase of government-set

21

gasoline prices, the Iranian government implemented marshal law, turning off the

22

country’s internet for several days. Curfews were implemented, and an undisclosed number of protesters were slaughtered.

23

• Dec. 29, 2019 US forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against five facilities

the Pentagon says are tied to an Iranian-backed militia blamed for a series of attacks

24

on joint US-Iraq military facilities housing American forces, causing Iranian Foreign

Ministry spokesman Abbas Mosavi to say the US has "openly shown its support to

25

terrorism and shown its negligence to the independence and national sovereignty of

26

countries" and that “it must accept responsibility of the consequences of the illegal attacks."

27

28

32

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 37 of 55 Page ID #:1561

1

Individually, these escalations and the rhetoric surrounding them

2
compound Plaintiffs’ anxiety about their loved ones’ safety and security.
3

4

Collectively, they have lodged Plaintiffs into a constant state of distress

5

that, absent intervention, will last for what appears to be an indefinite period

6
of time.
7

8 108. When the Iranian government cut off the internet in the country on
9
November 16, 2019, Petitioner Plaintiffs feared the worst. For example, minor
10

11

Plaintiffs S.A.(1) and S.A.(2) normally talk to their father every day on video

12

chat, but even they knew something was wrong when they couldn’t, causing

13

S.A.(1) to cry and ignore everyone in her house, saying she only wants to talk
14

15

to her dad. Similarly, Plaintiff PARTO KAVOOSIAN could not get ahold of

16

her parents to know if they were ok, causing her to feel numb. Even though

17

Plaintiff MANSOUR HARDANIAN was still able to communicate with his
18

19

wife using a landline phone instead of video calls, he was very concerned for

20

her safety, worrying what they would do if the government cut the landline

21

22

phones, or even worse, closed the airports.

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 38 of 55 Page ID #:1562

1

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2
COUNT ONE

3

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1)

4

5 Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

6
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
7
8 109. Pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), Defendants have a

9

nondiscretionary duty “to conclude a matter presented to it” “within a

10
reasonable time.” Defendants have failed to adjudicate the waivers of PP 9645
11

12

for Beneficiary Plaintiffs, and thus, have not concluded matters presented.

13

Defendants have failed to adjudicate Beneficiary Plaintiffs visa waivers within

14
90 days, and thus, have not concluded matters presented within a reasonable
15

16

time.

17 110. Because the actions Defendants take in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ waivers,

18
through unlawful designations, is prohibited by the Proclamation, adjudication
19

20

of waivers has been unlawfully withheld.

21 111. On December 14, 2017, DEFENDANT NANTAIS sent an email to

22
then-Consular Section Chief at U.S. Embassy Djibouti Brian Sells, explicitly
23

24

instructing him: “Please be clear that the goal of this effort is not to create

25

timely processing of waivers for any applicant who is ineligible under the

26
proclamation.”
27

28

34

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 39 of 55 Page ID #:1563

1 112. Defendant DOS unlawfully designated consular managers, visa chiefs,

2
consular section chiefs, and consular management, the Visa Office, and even
3

4

non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors, to have

5

authority and discretion over final decisions about case-by-case waivers.

6
113. Defendants’ requirement for consular manager concurrence for final
7

8

waiver decisions, as exposed in the Van Hollen Letter, demonstrates a pattern

9

and policy of delay in dealing with waiver adjudications. Defendants’

10
requirement for visa chief and consular section chief concurrence with final
11

12

waiver decisions, as exposed in Defendant’s “Operational Q&As on P.P.

13

9645,” demonstrates a pattern and policy of delay in dealing with waiver

14
adjudications.
15

16 114. Defendants’ requirement for consular management and Visa Office

17

concurrence with final waiver decisions, as exposed in an April 11, 2019

18
“Department of State/AILA Liaison Committee Meeting,” demonstrates a
19

20

pattern and policy of waiver adjudications delays.

21 115. Because Defendants administer a pattern and policy of delay in dealing

22
with all waiver adjudications, including the waiver adjudications for all
23

24

Beneficiary Plaintiffs, the connection amongst Plaintiffs is sufficient to satisfy

25

joinder requirements.

26
116. Pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), a court may compel agency
27

28

action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”

35

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 40 of 55 Page ID #:1564

1

2
COUNT TWO

3

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, § 706(2)(A) and (D)

4
Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
5
6 the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

7 117. The APA prohibits federal agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an

8
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or is conducted
9

10

“without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and

11

(D).

12
118. Defendants’ requirement for consular manager concurrence for final
13

14

waiver decisions, as expressed in the Van Hollen Letter, is an appointment of

15

the consular manager as designee to the consular officer, which is unlawful as

16
it was not authorized by PP 9645.
17

18 119. Defendants’ requirement for visa chief and consular section chief

19

concurrence with final waiver decisions, as exposed in Defendant’s

20
“Operational Q&As on P.P. 9645,” is an appointment of visa chief and
21

22

consular section chief as designees to the consular officer, which is unlawful as

23

it was not authorized by PP 9645.

24
120. Defendants’ requirement for consular management and Visa Office
25

26

concurrence with final waiver decisions, as exposed in an April 11, 2019

27

“Department of State/AILA Liaison Committee Meeting,” is an appointment of

28

36

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 41 of 55 Page ID #:1565

1

consular management and the Visa Office as designees to the consular officer,

2
which is unlawful as it was not authorized by PP 9645.
3
4 121. While Section 3(C) of PP 9645 explicitly allows for the Commissioner

5

of CBP to appoint a designee “as appropriate, in their discretion,” it does not

6
allow for the consular officer to appoint a designee. Nor does PP 9645 extend
7

8

the authority to appoint a designee to POMPEO, or DOS. Further, PP 9645 was

9

specific as to “their discretion,” where “their” refers to the consular manager,

10
the CBP Commissioner, and the CBP Commissioner’s designee. Therefore,
11

12

designations of authority for waiver adjudications was settled within the four

13

corners of PP 9645. PP 9645 was silent as to any authority or discretion placed

14
with consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, and consular
15

16

management, the Visa Office, and even non-DOS employees, such as Quality

17

Support, Inc. contractors, to adjudicate case-by-case waivers, so their required

18
concurrence is unlawful.
19

20 122. Thus, since Defendants’ appointment of consular managers, visa chiefs,

21

consular section chiefs, and consular management, the Visa Office, and even

22
non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors, as designees to
23

24

adjudicate final waiver decisions is also forbidden by, and unlawful under, PP

25

9645, the decision to make the unauthorized grant of discretion to the consular

26
manager, by Defendants POMPEO, DOS, and/or DOES #3-#10, was an
27

28

arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion, and it is without observance of

37

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 42 of 55 Page ID #:1566

1

procedure required by law, because it conflicts explicitly with the text of PP

2
9645.
3
4 123. On March 27, 2019, Defendant POMPEO appeared before the House

5

Foreign Affairs Committee. When asked by U.S. Representative David Trone

6
to talk about the usurpation of consular officer authority and discretion in the
7

8

implementation of PP 9645 waiver scheme, Defendant POMPEO answered, “I

9

actually think we have the authorities here precisely right.”

10

11

12

COUNT THREE

MANDAMUS

13

14 Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

15 the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
16

17 124. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
18
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
19
20 125. As noted in Count One, the APA requires agencies to “proceed to

21

conclude a matter presented” to the agency “within a reasonable time.” 5

22
U.S.C. § 555(b). As a result of Defendants’ waiver adjudication scheme,
23

24

Plaintiffs in this action have been awaiting final waiver decisions from between

25

15 to 25 months. In failing to adjudicate their applications, Defendants have

26
failed to act “within a reasonable time” in violation of the APA.
27

28

38

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 43 of 55 Page ID #:1567

1 126. Further, and as noted in Count Two, the APA prohibits federal agency

2
action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
3

4

accordance with law,” or is conducted “without observance of procedure

5

required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (D).

6
127. Defendants’ requirement for consular manager concurrence with final
7

8

waiver decisions, as exposed in the Van Hollen Letter, is an appointment of the

9

consular manager as designee to the consular officer, and not authorized by PP

10
9645. Thus, the requirement is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, as
11

12

well as not in accordance with law.

13 128. Defendants’ requirement for visa chief and consular section chief

14
concurrence with final waiver decisions, as exposed in Defendant’s
15

16

“Operational Q&As on P.P. 9645,” is an appointment of visa chief and

17

consular section chief as designees to the consular officer, and not authorized

18
by PP 9645. Thus, the requirement is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
19

20

discretion, as well as not in accordance with law.

21 129. Defendants’ requirement for consular management and Visa Office

22
concurrence with final waiver decisions, as exposed in an April 11, 2019
23

24

“Department of State/AILA Liaison Committee Meeting,” is an appointment of

25

consular management and the Visa Office as designees to the consular officer,

26
and not authorized by PP 9645. Thus, the requirement is arbitrary, capricious,
27

28

an abuse of discretion, as well as not in accordance with law.

39

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 44 of 55 Page ID #:1568

1 130. Finally, Defendants have a non-discretionary duty to develop guidance

2
on the waiver process that results in the full, fairly, and adjudication of
3

4

Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ considerations for waivers under PP 9645 within a

5

reasonable time. Instead, Defendants have developed inconsistent guidance that

6
leads to a waiver adjudication scheme that never gives individual consular
7

8

officers the discretion and authority PP 9645 requires. As designed by the PP

9

9645 Brain Trust, this scheme places visa applicants, including Plaintiffs, in a

10
perpetual loop of administrative processing.
11

12 131. Because there are no other adequate remedies available to Plaintiffs,

13

mandamus is appropriate. See 5 U.S.C. § 704.

14

15

16

COUNT FOUR

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

17

18 Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

19 the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

20
132. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o
21

22

person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

23

law.”

24
133. Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights include their right to the "integrity of the
25

26

family unit." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). This includes a

27

cognizable liberty interest in their family members’ ability to travel to the

28
United States. See Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.

40

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 45 of 55 Page ID #:1569

1

2008); see also Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2139 (2018) (Kennedy, J.,

2
concurring); Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2016)
3

4

(noting that J. Kennedy’s concurrence in Din is controlling). Individuals must

5

be given due process prior to the deprivation of these liberty interests.

6
134. For example, due to Defendants’ withholding of PP 9645 waiver
7

8

adjudication for FARSHAD AMIRKHANI, S.A.(1), his 14-year-old daughter

9

S.A.(1), and 11-year-old son S.A.(2), have already been separated from their

10
father for two years more than they would have been without the withholding
11

12

of PP 9645 waiver adjudication.

13 135. Congress has created statutory rights and prescribed procedures

14
applicable to prospective immigrants. Due process rights attach to those
15

16

statutory rights, which create cognizable liberty and property interests for both

17

Petitioner Plaintiffs and Beneficiary Plaintiffs. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d

18
917, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The due process afforded aliens stems from those
19

20

statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that ‘[m]inimum due

21

process rights attach to statutory rights.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Dia

22
v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003). Those interests include reliance
23

24

interests on the basis of which Plaintiffs have spent significant resources. See

25

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601 (1972)(mutually explicit expectations

26
give rise to property interests).
27

28

41

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 46 of 55 Page ID #:1570

1 136. Federal agencies have likewise created regulatory rights related to the

2
petitioning and issuance of visas. Individuals must be given due process prior
3

4

to the deprivation of these statutory and regulatory rights.

5 137. The “very essence” of due process is the “protection of the individual

6
against arbitrary action.” Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,
7

8

584 (1972). Any deprivation of liberty and property interests must, at the very

9

least, have a rational basis.

10
138. Defendants’ policies, decisions, and actions that caused and continue to
11

12

cause unreasonable administrative delays in the adjudication of Beneficiary

13

Plaintiffs’ waivers has already deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiffs of

14
protected liberty and property interests without due process of law.
15

16 139. There is no queue for visa applicants awaiting adjudications of PP 9645

17

waivers. Rather, Defendants have implemented a waiver adjudication scheme

18
that is at its heart, arbitrary madness. This is due in part to Defendants
19

20

implementing a system that, in addition to usurping consular officer authority

21

and discretion, fails to fully integrate a system for tracking which applications

22
were awaiting concurrence before the consular officer could approve the visas.
23

24

Waiver requests were submitted by consular officers to the countries-of-

25

concern@state.gov email address, with that email being the only digital, and

26
for that matter - the last, record of the requests.
27

28

42

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 47 of 55 Page ID #:1571

1 140. Most Iranian visa applicants, including all Beneficiary Plaintiffs in this

2
action, have seen other applicants who attended interviews months if not years
3

4

after them, have their visas issued already. Further, as a result of Defendants’

5

early-July implementation of automated pre-vetting, Iranian national visa

6
applicants attending their first consular interview today, are likely to have their
7

8

PP 9645 waiver adjudicated within months, and at least one to two years before

9

Iranian national visa applicants who attended their consular interviews prior to

10
early-July 2019.
11

12 141. By extending, by unlawful designation, authority and discretion to

13

consular managers to adjudicate, or have input to the adjudication of Plaintiffs’

14
waivers, Defendants have already deprived, and continue to deprive Plaintiffs
15

16

of protected liberty and property interests without due process of law.

17 142. Further, the waiver process Defendants have implemented is inherently

18
arbitrary and has deprived Plaintiffs of even the most minimal process that
19

20

attaches to the statutory benefits conferred on them by Congress. By not

21

allowing them or their family members the opportunity to be considered for a

22
waiver, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of the opportunity to show that
23

24

they meet the eligibility criteria for visa categories for which they or their

25

family members are eligible by statute. In doing so, Defendants have already

26
deprived, and continue to provide Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, of
27

28

protected liberty and property interests without due process of law.

43

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 48 of 55 Page ID #:1572

1 143. Defendants’ implementation of the PP 9645 waiver provision in such a

2
way as to guarantee visa applicants incurring the guaranteed and senseless
3

4

duplicative expenses like medical reports and travel to embassies in third

5

countries (Armenia, Turkey, and the U.A.E.) violates their property interests.

6
144. Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed rights
7

8

have caused Plaintiffs to suffer and continue to suffer irreparable harm (by

9

indefinitely denying them access to their families and unnecessarily burdening

10
them with extraordinary expenses), and entitle them to declaratory, injunctive
11

12

and other relief.

13

14

COUNT FIVE

15

VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

16

EMBEDDED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

17 Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set
18
forth above.
19
20 145. Defendants have violated the equal protection principles of the

21

Fourteenth Amendment, embedded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

22
Amendment.
23

24 146. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in usurping consular

25

officer authority and withholding Plaintiffs’ waiver adjudications irreversibly

26
discriminates against Plaintiffs’ exercise of their fundamental rights to life,
27

28

liberty, and property, and abridge central precepts of equality. The affirmative

44

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 49 of 55 Page ID #:1573

1

aggregate acts of Defendants in usurping consular officer authority has caused

2
and continues to cause irreparable injury and hardship to Plaintiffs.
3
4 147. As a result, the irreparable injury and hardship caused by Defendants has

5

denied Plaintiffs the same protection of fundamental rights afforded to visa

6
applicants who had the arbitrary fortune to have their consular interviews
7

8

scheduled for after early-July 2019, and thus benefit from Defendants’ new

9

automated processing.

10
148. The imposition of this disability on Plaintiffs serves to disrespect and
11

12

subordinate them. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fifth

13

Amendment’s equal protection principles are connected but set forth distinct

14
principles, which are implicated here.
15

16 149. Beneficiary Plaintiffs in this action are all Iranian nationals who attended

17

consular interviews prior to the Visa Office’s early-July 2019 implementation

18
of an automated processing system, and they are members of a separate suspect
19

20

class in need of protection from the political process pursuant to the principles

21

of Equal Protection. As evidenced by their affirmative aggregate acts,

22
Defendants have a long history of deliberately discriminating against Iranian
23

24

nationals. In fact, the reason they implemented the automated processing

25

system when they did was to increase the number of approved waivers in

26
advance of a congressional hearing of the House Judiciary Committee
27

28

Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and Foreign Affairs Committee

45

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 50 of 55 Page ID #:1574

1

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, that eventually took place on

2
September 24, 2019.
3
4 150. At that congressional hearing, Edward Ramotowski, Deputy Assistant

5

Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs for Defendant DOS (“Mr.

6
Ramotowski”), revealed that the new automated processing “occurs prior to [a
7

8

visa applicant’s] interview,” before bragging that, “[i]n the short time this

9

system has been in place, the month-to-month change in visas issued pursuant

10
to a waiver rose from a steady 10 to 12 percent from before the new system, to
11

12

more than 50 percent each month.” Yet, in the same testimony, for the waiver

13

adjudications of Beneficiary Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, Mr.

14
Ramotowski would only say “the Department is working diligently to review
15

16

and process to conclusion existing P.P. 9645-subject cases, and that “[w]e

17

anticipate that a majority of pre-July 2019 waiver cases pending with the

18
Department, most of which require some degree of manual review, should be
19

20

completed by the end of 2019 or soon thereafter.” See Exhibit C.

21 151. Beneficiary Plaintiffs are an insular minority with no voting rights and

22
no political power or influence over Defendants and their actions concerning
23

24

Defendants’ waiver adjudication scheme. Beneficiary Plaintiffs have

25

immutable characteristics, national origin and consular interview date, that they

26
cannot change.
27

28

46

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 51 of 55 Page ID #:1575

1 152. Beneficiary Plaintiffs do not have present political power or influence,

2
have immutable characteristics, and are also an insular minority.
3
4 153. Beneficiary Plaintiffs have no avenues of redress other than this court, as

5

Beneficiary Plaintiffs cannot challenge or alter the acts of Defendants usurping

6
consular officer authority or withholding their waiver adjudications. Plaintiffs
7

8

have experienced and will continue to suffer the irreparable impacts of

9

Defendants’ indefinite withholding of their waiver adjudications, while visa

10
applicants attending their visa interviews today will suffer no such hardship.
11
12 154. No rational basis exists for why Defendants are using an efficient

13

automated process for adjudicating waivers for new visa applicants, but not

14
using the automated process for adjudicating waivers for Beneficiary Plaintiffs,
15

16

who have waited so long and endured so much hardship already.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 52 of 55 Page ID #:1576

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1.
10 11
2.
12
13 3.
14 15
4.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 5.
25 26 27 28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
“Visa adjudication software does not permit a consular officer to overcome the refusal [entered by the consular officer at the end of the interview] and issue a visa while a formal request…is pending a response from the Department. This is a safety feature designed to ensure that a consular officer does not issue a visa unless and until they have all the information necessary to assess an applicant’s visa eligibility.”
- Exhibit B, Nantais Decl., at ¶14, (emphasis added).
Declare that Defendants’ administrative delays in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ consideration for waivers of PP 9645 have been unreasonable; Declare that one year to adjudicate a PP 9645 § 3(c) waiver is unreasonable; Declare that Defendants’ policies, patterns, decisions and actions that have led to the unreasonable delays are unlawful; Declare that Defendants’ policies, patterns, decisions, and actions in designating consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management, the Visa Office, and even non-DOS employees, such as Quality Support, Inc. contractors, with the authority and discretion granted to consular officers over case-by-case waiver adjudication, have been arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise specifically contrary to Section 3(c) of PP 9645; Declare Defendants’ policies, decisions, and actions in implementing and enforcing Section 3(c) of PP 9645 have violated Plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment;

48

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 53 of 55 Page ID #:1577

1 6.
2 3 4
5 7.
6 7
8 8.
9 10 11 12
13 9.
14 15
16 10.
17 18
11.
19 20
21 12.
22 23
24 13.
25 26 27 28

Declare Defendants’ policies, decisions, and actions in implementing and enforcing PP 9645 §3(c) have violated Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment; Enjoin Defendants from further violations of the Constitution underlying each claim for relief; Order Defendants to issue guidance and develop a waiver process that does not violate the APA or the constitutional guarantees of due process and that provides meaningful and timely adjudication for every individual visa applicant’s eligibility for a waiver; Declare Defendants’ bad faith implementation of Section 3(c) of PP 9645 to be unconstitutional; Declare PP 9645, absent the good faith implementation of Section 3(c), to be unconstitutional; Order Defendants to adjudicate the Beneficiary Plaintiffs’ individual eligibility for waivers of PP 9645; Order Defendants to act on waiver considerations of those similarly situated to Beneficiary Plaintiffs have been pending for an unreasonable period of time; Order Defendants to evaluate whether other visa applicants were denied waivers due to Defendants’ policies, decisions and actions found unlawful by the court, and if so, order Defendants to reconsider those visa applicants for waivers of PP 9645, lawfully;

49

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 54 of 55 Page ID #:1578

1 14.
2 3
4 15.
5 6
16.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with all orders of this Court; Award Plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law; and Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED: December 30, 2019 Tustin, CA Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Curtis Lee Morrison THE LAW OFFICE OF RAFAEL UREÑA CURTIS LEE MORRISON (CABN 321106)

50

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77 Filed 12/30/19 Page 55 of 55 Page ID #:1579

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Case No. 19−cv−01417 JVS (DFMx)

3

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

4
America that the following is true and correct. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
5
6 to the above-titled action.

7 On the below date, I electronically filed the PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR
9
10 WRIT OF MANDAMUS and all attached exhibits with the Clerk of the United

11 States District Court for the Central District of California, using the CM/ECF System.
12
The Courts CM/ECF System will send an electronically email all noticed parties to
13
14 the action who are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF System.

15
16 Dated:
17

December 30, 2019 Tustin, California

Respectfully submitted:

18
/s/ Curtis Lee Morrison
19

20

Curtis Lee Morrison, Esq.

The Law Office of Rafael Ureña

21

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51

UNCLCAaSSsIeFI8E:D19-Uc.vS.-0D1e4p1ar7tm-JeVnSt o-Df SFtMate DCaosceuNmoe. nFt-27071-81-00F74il9edD1o2c /N3o0./1C9066P54a5g1e5 1Doafte3: 11P/2a0g/2e01ID8 #:1580

From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Countries-of-concern-inquiries

RELEASE IN PART BS,B3 !INA,B7(E),BS

Thursday, April 12, 2018 9:37 AM

Ray, Katherine 0 =RayKO@state.gov&; kennedy, Angels Y -rKennedyAY(ckstate.gov&; Jenkins, kunduz 0 JettkinsKO."o/state.gov&; Shelstad, Jeffrey 'cghelstadJ~&r7state.gov&;

Countries-of-concern-inquiries ~Countries-of-concern-inquiriesi&state.gov&

SAONFA &SAONEA&avstate.gov&; Brendt, Fmily R tBrandtERDa;state.gov&; Fvans, Jewell F, &F vans JF!rat.state.gov ~

RE: Follow up on PP9645 V,'a)ver SAOs - E017 Refusals for Syrian IVO Cases

Angels,

EXHIBIT A

For EO17 IV refusals, please follow the instructions in 09 FAM 601.6-3(C) for records disposition guidelines:
htt: fern.a.state.sbu fern 09FAM 09FAM060106.html¹M601 6 3

B7(E)

Sean Whalen Office of Field Operations, Visa Services (CA/VO/F/ET)
SBU This email is UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2018-00749 Doc No. C06654515 Date: 11/20/2018

UNCLCAaSSsIeFI8E:D19-Uc.vS.-0D1e4p1ar7tm-JeVnSt o-Df SFtMate DCaosceuNmoe. nFt-27071-81-00F74il9edD1o2c /N3o0./1C9066P54a5g1e5 2Doafte3: 11P/2a0g/2e01ID8 #:1581

From: Ray, Katherine 0 Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 8: 14 AM
To: Kennedy, Angels Y; Jenkins, Kunduz 0; Shelstad, Jeffrey; Countries-of-concern-inquiries Cc: SAONEA; Brendt, Emily R; Evans, Jewell E Subject: RE: Follow up on PP9645 Waiver SAOs — E017 Refusals for Syrian IVO Cases
+ VO/F
Official - SBU UNCLASSIFIED
From: Kennedy, Angela Y Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 3:45 Aivi To: Jenkins, Kunduz 0; Shelstad, Jeffrey Cc: SAONEA; Brendt, Emily R; Evans, Jewell E Subject: RE: Follow up on PP9645 Waiver SAOs - E017 Refusals for Syrian IVO Cases
Thanks for this, Kim.
an you, Angela

B3 INA B5

Official
UNCLASSIFIED
From: Jenkins, Kunduz 0
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:06 PM
To: Kennedy, Angela Y; Shelstad, Jeffrey Cc: SAONEA; Brandt, Emily R; Evans, Jewell E
Subject: Follow up on PP9645 Waiver SAOs - E017 Refusals for Syrian IVO Cases
Hi Angela and Jeff,
I wanted to let you know that we'e sent today refusals under E017 for the following PP Waiver SAOs back to post:
B3 INA B5 B6 B7(E)

Please let me know if you have any questions l
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2018-00749 Doc No. C06654515 Date: 11/20/2018

UNCLCAaSSsIeFI8E:D19-Uc.vS.-0D1e4p1ar7tm-JeVnSt o-Df SFtMate DCaosceuNmoe. nFt-27071-81-00F74il9edD1o2c /N3o0./1C9066P54a5g1e5 3Doafte3: 11P/2a0g/2e01ID8 #:1582
Regards,
Kim
Kunduz Jenkins Visa Analyst ISyria. I.,ebanon)
Bureau of Consular Affairs! Visa Offic r+VO/SAC
Contractor: Quality Support, Inc.
U.S. Department of State
202.485.7495 Official- SBU
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2018-00749 Doc No. C06654515 Date: 11/20/2018

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e o1f o1f717Page ID #:1583
EXHIBIT B

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg2e o2f o1f717Page ID #:1584

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg3e o3f o1f717Page ID #:1585

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg4e o4f o1f717Page ID #:1586

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg5e o5f o1f717Page ID #:1587

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg6e o6f o1f717Page ID #:1588

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg7e o7f o1f717Page ID #:1589

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg8e o8f o1f717Page ID #:1590

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg9e o9f o1f717Page ID #:1591

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e01o0f o1f717Page ID #:1592

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e11o1f o1f717Page ID #:1593

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e21o2f o1f717Page ID #:1594

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e31o3f o1f717Page ID #:1595

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e41o4f o1f717Page ID #:1596

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e51o5f o1f717Page ID #:1597

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e61o6f o1f717Page ID #:1598

Case 8:1C9a-scev-30:11481-c7v-J-0V1S5-8D7F-JMD DDooccuummeennt t7173-25-1FilFeidle1d21/310/2/159/19PaPgaeg1e71o7f o1f717Page ID #:1599

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-3 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:1600
UNCLASSIFIED EXHIBIT C -1-
Testimony of Edward Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State September 24, 2019
House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Bera, Ranking Member Zeldin and Ranking Member Buck, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the Department of State’s role in implementing Presidential Proclamation 9645 (P.P. 9645 or the Proclamation). Today I am honored to represent the many career consular officers dedicated to adjudicating visas according to the law and regulations set forth by the President and Congress. In my over 33 years of service with the State Department, I have observed first-hand how committed these career staff are to providing the best customer service possible, and to ensuring that each and every consular adjudication is made in adherence with the established requirements. As laws and regulations change, these career staff work hard to quickly adapt and implement new procedures in a professional manner.
President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, titled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other PublicSafety Threats,” on September 24, 2017. The issuance of the Proclamation was prompted by a global review conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Department of State (the Department) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
The 2017 review evaluated whether additional information would be needed from each foreign country to assess adequately if their nationals seeking to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. That review focused on the integrity of documents required to travel to the United States, whether the country makes available certain types of information on terrorists, criminals, fraudsters and the traveling population; and a national security and public-safety risk assessment of the country.
The President deemed it necessary to impose certain restrictions on the entry of certain nonimmigrants and immigrants from nationals of eight countries, including Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. P.P. 9645’s travel restrictions were intended to address the information-sharing and other security risks to the United States and to encourage host governments to remedy these deficiencies. On April 10, 2018, a new Presidential Proclamation amended P.P. 9645 of September 24, 2017, removing the visa restrictions imposed on nationals of Chad based on the notable improvements of the government of Chad in identity management practices, handling of lost and stolen passports, and information sharing.
Although certain federal courts enjoined the government from enforcing P.P. 9645, on December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court allowed P.P. 9645 to be fully implemented. In accordance with that decision, on December 8, 2017, the Department undertook to fully implement the Proclamation. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision that the Proclamation was a lawful

Unclassified

UNCLASSIFIED
AILA Doc. No. 19092638. (Posted 9/26/19)

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-3 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:1601
UNCLASSIFIED -2-
exercise of the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Consistent with the Court’s decision, the Department continued processing visa applications in accordance with the Proclamation for subject nationals of the seven affected countries.
The Department of State’s main role in the implementation of P.P. 9645 is to adjudicate visa applications from nationals of the seven designated countries and, where legally appropriate, to apply exceptions and waivers. This is a multi-step process.
First, a consular officer must determine whether an applicant is otherwise eligible for a visa under the immigration laws of the United States. Many applicants will be found ineligible at this stage, especially those seeking a temporary visitor visa who are unable to demonstrate that they have a residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning.
Second, if otherwise eligible for the visa, the consular officer determines whether the applicant qualifies for an exception to the Proclamation’s travel restrictions or, if not, whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver under the Proclamation, which allows for issuance of a visa. The restrictions imposed by the Proclamation vary by country, so that some nationals experience only limited impact. For example, only certain government officials from Venezuela are subject to the Proclamation’s restrictions, while for Yemeni and Libyan nationals, the Proclamation only restricts short-term tourist and business nonimmigrant visas. Somali nationals face no restrictions on any nonimmigrant visa category.
The Department of State has devoted substantial efforts to ensure that the Proclamation’s entry restrictions, exceptions and waivers are applied correctly and consistently by consular officers at embassies and consulates overseas. The Department has updated guidance as necessary for consular officers in the field to accomplish this task.
Some applicants benefit from the exceptions provided by the Proclamation. An applicant whose situation fits into one of the exceptions set forth in the Proclamation, and who is otherwise eligible for a visa, may be issued a visa without going through the Proclamation’s waiver process. As specified in the Proclamation, these exceptions include:
• Individuals who were present in the United States when the proclamation went into effect • Individuals who had valid visas when the proclamation went into effect • Anyone whose visa was revoked or canceled as a result of E.O. 13769 who still qualifies • Any Lawful Permanent Resident • Anyone who subsequently travels to the United States under a proclamation waiver, or
any other lawful means. • Any dual national traveling on the passport of a non-subject country • Diplomats and officials traveling to the United Nations and NATO • Individuals who have been granted asylum, admitted to the United States as refugees, or
have been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or projection under the Convention Against Torture

Unclassified

UNCLASSIFIED
AILA Doc. No. 19092638. (Posted 9/26/19)

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-3 Filed 12/30/19 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:1602
UNCLASSIFIED -3-
With respect to Proclamation waivers, if a visa applicant subject to P.P. 9645’s visa restrictions has established eligibility for a visa (for example, has overcome INA section 214(b) and is not ineligible for a visa on a ground under INA 212(a)), the consular officer will automatically consider the applicant for a waiver based upon the criteria set forth in the Proclamation. There is no separate waiver application and no additional fee. As specified in the Proclamation, consular officers determine on a case-by-case basis if an applicant is eligible for a waiver, based on the following criteria: issuance of the visa is in the national interest; denial of the visa would cause the applicant undue hardship; and, the applicant poses no national security or public safety threat to the United States.
Consular officers, in consultation with their supervisors, determine whether applicants meet the waiver criteria, especially the first two (national interest and undue hardship) based on general guidance provided by the Department. Consular officers are in the best position to assess the applicant’s personal circumstances and purpose of travel as part of the visa application process, and they can ask for additional information directly from the applicant if needed. For the third waiver criterion (national security) consular officers, until recently, were required to send the case to Washington for review, in a process similar to the security advisory opinion (SAO) procedure for other visa cases. A clear response on the security review would allow the consular officer to approve the waiver and issue the visa.
Up until July 2019, to comply with the national security criterion of the waiver process, applicants subject to P.P. 9645 underwent an intensive post-interview interagency security review, to provide consular officers information on whether or not the applicant’s entry into the United States would pose a threat to national security or public safety. Until very recently, this interagency review was a time-consuming manual process, which led to a large backlog of waiver cases. During this time, the Department worked closely with consular officers in the field to identify and expedite processing of the most urgent cases, while maintaining the rigorous nature of the security review.
The Department, after extensive work with interagency partners and consistent with the March 6, 2017 Presidential Memorandum, “Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits…,” and Section 5 of P.P. 9645 started in early July 2019 to run a new enhanced automated screening and vetting process for all immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants subject to the Proclamation. The new enhanced review is automated, occurs prior to the interview, and provides consular officers with the information required to make most P.P. 9645 waiver determinations much more quickly. It is now possible that many cases may be issued within days of the application, should the security check done prior to the interview not show any concerns – once the consular officer has established all three criterion of the waiver, the visa may be issued.
While it is too early to ascertain the full impact on new P.P. 9645-subject applications, initial evidence indicates that consular officers are now able to make most waiver decisions within a few days of the visa interview. In the short time this system has been in place, the month-tomonth change in visas issued pursuant to a waiver rose from a steady 10 to 12 percent from before the new system, to more than 50 percent each month. This is evidence that under the new system, applicants who qualify for a waiver will receive their visas much sooner. Meanwhile,

Unclassified

UNCLASSIFIED
AILA Doc. No. 19092638. (Posted 9/26/19)

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-3 Filed 12/30/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:1603
UNCLASSIFIED -4-
the Department is working diligently to review and process to conclusion existing P.P. 9645subject cases. Since September 14, 2019 the Department issued more than 7,600 visas pursuant to a waiver of P.P. 9645. We anticipate that a majority of pre-July 2019 waiver cases pending with the Department, most of which require some degree of manual review, should be completed by the end of 2019 or soon thereafter. The new automated system is intended to significantly increase the speed and efficiency of the vetting process for both currently pending and future P.P. 9645-subject applications while enhancing security standards.
Finally, it should be noted that the Department is working closely with a number of other countries around the world to address other security and information sharing deficiencies that were identified by the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing P.P. 9645 review process. This policy of constructive diplomatic engagement aims to mitigate or eliminate the security deficiencies in a cooperative manner, without resorting to sanctions. As such, it will improve not only U.S. national security, but the security of the international community as well.
Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your questions and those of other members of the Subcommittees.

Unclassified

UNCLASSIFIED
AILA Doc. No. 19092638. (Posted 9/26/19)

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-4 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1604
EXHIBIT D
Generate this slide by taking the following steps:
1. In the Tableau PP 9645 Report Dashboard, navigate to the appropriate tab
2. Hover over ‘Dashboard’ at the top of the screen
3. Select ‘Export Image’ from the drop-down menu
4. Save the image as a PNG
5. Return here and click Insert at the top left
6. Select ‘Picture’, then choose the file to paste
7. If you’re generating the weekly report on “Outcomes for P.P. 9645 Applications Pending Issuance in June 2019”, delete the remaining two template slides from this file

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-4 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1605
Generate this slide by taking the following steps: 1. In the Tableau PP 9645 Report Dashboard, navigate to the
appropriate tab 2. Hover over ‘Dashboard’ at the top of the screen 3. Select ‘Export Image’ from the drop-down menu 4. Save the image as a PNG 5. Return here and click Insert at the top left 6. Select ‘Picture’, then choose the file to paste 7. If you’re generating the weekly report on “Outcomes for P.P.
9645 Applications Pending Issuance in June 2019”, delete the remaining two template slides from this file

Case 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM Document 77-4 Filed 12/30/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1606
Generate this slide by taking the following steps: 1. In the Tableau PP 9645 Report Dashboard, navigate to the
appropriate tab 2. Hover over ‘Dashboard’ at the top of the screen 3. Select ‘Export Image’ from the drop-down menu 4. Save the image as a PNG 5. Return here and click Insert at the top left 6. Select ‘Picture’, then choose the file to paste 7. If you’re generating the weekly report on “Outcomes for P.P.
9645 Applications Pending Issuance in June 2019”, delete the remaining two template slides from this file