Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05003/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AKE PETER GERHARD

SVENSBORN and LISA ULRIKA

NORGREN,

Petitioners,

v.

PETER D. KEISLER, et al.,

Respondents.

NO. C07-5003 TEH

ORDER GRANTING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This matter came before the Court on Friday, September 28, 2007, on Petitioners’ oral

request for a temporary restraining order. However, Petitioners essentially request that the

Court grant their petition for a writ of mandamus, rather than asking the Court for a

temporary restraining order and to set a schedule for hearing a preliminary injunction motion. 

See Civ. L.R. 65-1(c) (discussing form of temporary restraining order).

It is undisputed that the deadline for granting Petitioners’ visa application expires on

September 30, 2007, and that if no visa is granted by that time, Petitioner Lisa Ulrika

Norgren will be unable to receive an immigrant visa through the diversity immigration visa

program. It is also undisputed that Petitioner Norgren’s application was refused under

section 221(g) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act, and that such refusal

Case 3:07-cv-05003-TEH Document 4 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

allows the applicant to submit additional information prior to a final decision on his or her

visa application.

At oral argument, Respondents cited the Court to two cases, also cited in

Respondents’ opposition brief, for the proposition that such a refusal constitutes an

unreviewable consular decision: Romero v. Consulate of U.S., 860 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. Va.

1994) and Garcia v. Baker, 765 F. Supp. 426 (N.D. Ill. 1990). However, neither case stands

for that proposition, as neither case concerned section 221(g). Rather than a refusal under

section 221(g), which indisputably allows an applicant to submit additional information in

furtherance of receiving a final decision, the refusals in both Romero and Garcia were, in

fact, final decisions; in neither case were the petitioners allowed to submit additional

information in support of their visa applications, nor was there any indication that the

government would otherwise be further reviewing the petitioners’ applications.

Accordingly, the Court rejects Respondent’s argument that Petitioners’ visa

application has been denied such that the principle of consular non-reviewability applies. 

Instead, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the petition for writ of mandamus and now

follows other district courts that have entered orders requiring Respondents to complete

adjudication of Petitioners’ visa application immediately, without delay, and by no later than

September 30, 2007. See, e.g., Przhebelskaya v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration

Servs., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2004); Paunescu v. I.N.S., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896,

898 (N.D. Ill. 1999). If, as seems likely, Respondents cannot finally adjudicate the

application by that date, then this order is sufficient to allow processing of the application

beyond the September 30, 2007 deadline because a “court has inherent power to have its

orders followed.” Gebre v. Rice, 462 F. Supp. 2d 186, 190 (D. Mass. 2006) (citing United

States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812)).

The Court recognizes that its decision is based on papers and oral arguments that have

been quickly assembled by both Petitioners and Respondents. Consequently, the Court

invites further briefing on the request for mandamus relief and will vacate its order if, after

more complete briefing, it finds that Respondents have the superior position. Assuming

Case 3:07-cv-05003-TEH Document 4 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Respondents continue to oppose the petition, they shall file a supplemental opposition on or

before October 15, 2007. Petitioners may then file a reply by October 22, 2007, and a

further hearing on this matter will be held by the Court on November 5, 2007, at 10:00 AM.

If Respondents no longer wish to oppose the petition, the parties shall immediately file a

stipulation of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/28/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-05003-TEH Document 4 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3