Opinion ID: 8312469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State Department's Implementation of the Executive Order

Text: Two days after the Supreme Court's decision, the State Department issued guidance to its consular officers regarding the Executive Order's impact on visa issuance. With respect to diversity visas, the State Department advised consular officers to first determine whether the applicant is eligible for the DV [ (diversity visa) ], without regard to the [Executive Order]. (ECF No. 2-2 (State Department Cable) at 3). Next, if an applicant is found otherwise eligible, the consular officer was instructed to determine whether the applicant is exempt from the [Executive Order]'s suspension of entry provision or qualifies for a waiver. ( Id .). Lastly, consular officers were advised that applicants who were not exempt from the Executive Order's suspension of entry provision and who did not qualify for a waiver should be refused a visa: c.) DV applicants who are not exempt from the [Executive Order]'s suspension of entry provision and who do not qualify for a waiver should be refused [pursuant to] 221(g) [of the INA] and the consular officer should request an advisory opinion from VO/L/A following current guidance in 9 FAM 304.3-1. ( Id .). Plaintiffs are four individuals-Hamed Sufyan Othman Almaqrami, Aliakbar Nowzari Golsefid, Farzad Abdollahi Zadeh, and Aiman Alsakkaf-and their immediate family members, who are from countries affected by section 2(c) of the Executive Order. ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-19). Almaqrami and Alsakkaf are from Yemen, and Golsefid and Zadeh are from Iran. ( Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 16, 19). Almaqrami, Golsefid, and Zadeh were selected as diversity lottery winners in May 2016. ( Id. ¶¶12-13, 16, 36). Alsakkaf was selected as a diversity lottery winner in July 2016. ( Id. ¶¶ 19, 36). Plaintiffs have submitted their visa applications and have completed their consular interviews. ( See id. ¶¶ 37, 38, 40, 41). However, on various dates since the Supreme Court's June 26, 2017 decision and the State Department's June 28, 2017 cable, Plaintiffs have been notified by the State Department that they were ineligible for diversity visas unless they could demonstrate a bona fide relationship with the United States. ( Id. ¶¶ 37, 39, 40, 41). Plaintiffs were unable to do so and therefore remained ineligible for a visa during the State Department's implementation of the Executive Order. ( Id. ). E. Plaintiffs' Requested Relief Plaintiffs claim that (1) the State Department's policy of applying the Executive Order's ban to visa issuance is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and  (2) in applying the policy, consular officers violated their clear, non-discretionary duty to issue diversity visas to applicants who are statutorily eligible. (Am. Compl. at 15-17). Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order: (1) enjoining the State Department from implementing the policy set forth in its cable; and (2) requiring consular officers to process Plaintiffs' applications pursuant to the statute. (Mot. at 10). On September 11, 2017, Defendants filed a status report indicating that the State Department is likely to reach the statutory cap of 50,000 visas before September 30, 2017 (ECF No. 40 (Defs. Status Report) at 1). Plaintiffs subsequently sought additional relief, requesting that this court, in light of the State Department's allegedly illegal interpretation of the Executive Order, order the State Department to: (1) process the diversity visas of and/or issue diversity visas to eligible applicants who had previously been refused under the Executive Order under the program for FY 2017, even in excess of the statutory cap and/or past the statutory deadline; or (2) issue diversity visas to eligible 2017 applicants who had been refused under the Executive Order under the program for fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018). (ECF No. 43 (Pls. Mot. Em. Conf.) at 3-4). In a Status Update filed on September 21, Plaintiffs requested that, in the alternative, the court order the State Department to reserve any unused visa numbers until after the [Supreme Court's decision]. (ECF No. 45 at 5).