Keyhanpoor v. Blinken

• Decision Date: 28 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-1182 (TJK)
• Parties: SHAGHAYEGH KEYHANPOOR et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTONY BLINKEN et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

SHAGHAYEGH KEYHANPOOR et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTONY BLINKEN et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-1182 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 28, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge

Plaintiffs-two foreign visa applicants, two U.S. citizens, and a nonprofit-sued various federal officials to challenge the denial of visa applications under federal immigration law. They allege that consular officers refused to issue visas for the applicants because of their past service in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion and dismiss the case.^[1]

I. Background

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), noncitizens living abroad must apply for and receive a visa to permanently reside in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). If a noncitizen abroad has a U.S. citizen relative, that relative may file a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. See 8 U.S.C. § 1154; 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). If approved, the noncitizen may submit a visa application to a local consulate and

1

interview with a consular officer. See Ghadami v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-397 (ABJ), 2020 WL 1308376, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2020); 22 C.F.R. §§ 204.2(a)(3), 42.67(a)(3).

The decision whether to grant a visa lies with the consular officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a). But the INA itself sets out various grounds on which a noncitizen may be inadmissible and ineligible for a visa, including the Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (“TRIG”). 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), (a)(3)(B). Among the TRIG classifications, members of terrorist organizations and those who have “received military-type training . . . from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization” are inadmissible. Id. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(V)-(VI), (VIII).

There are three “tiers” of “terrorist organizations” under TRIG. They include any organization

(I) designated under section 1189 of [the INA]; (II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State . . . as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in [terrorist activity]; or (III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in [terrorist activity]

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). The consular officer determines whether a visa applicant is inadmissible under TRIG. See 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).

In 2019, the State Department designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”) a Tier I Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189.^[2] Thus, any visa applicant who

2

served in the IRGC after its Tier I designation took effect is inadmissible under TRIG. But an applicant who served before 2019 may still be inadmissible if a consular officer finds that the IRGC qualified as a Tier III organization while they served.

Mohsen Keyhanpoor and Mohammadsadegh Mehrabani Ardekani (the “IRGC Plaintiffs”) both served two-year terms in the IRGC many years ago. ECF. No. 20 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 32, 42. They allege that “Iranian males who are legally required to enter the draft can be drafted into one of the three branches of the armed forces: the Army, Law Enforcement Force or IRGC, with no option to choose or right of refusal.” Id. ¶ 29. They also assert that failing to register for the draft or serve could have resulted in serious penalties, including the loss of civil rights or jail time. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Keyhanpoor alleges that, beginning in 1996, he “served his mandatory conscription with IRGC for two years. He only ever served within Iran and was never stationed abroad.... [And] he worked in the human resources division . . . [where] his duties were administrative.” Id. ¶ 35. So too, Mehrabani Ardekani alleges “[h]e was randomly assigned to IRGC” for his mandatory two-year service in 2003, where “he was assigned to a desk job” and “[h]is duties were primarily human resources.” Id. ¶¶ 41-43. Both claim they “ceased all contact and communication with IRGC” after their service. Id. ¶¶ 37, 44.

Years later, in 2016, Mohsen Keyhanpoor married Shaghayegh Keyhanpoor, a U.S. citizen. Compl. ¶ 38. Not long after, the couple filed a Form I-130, and Mohsen Keyhanpoor appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey. Id. ¶ 39. Ultimately, in 2020, the consular officer refused his visa application, citing TRIG ineligibility. Id. Later that year, and

3

upon Mohsen Keyhanpoor's request, the consular officer reconsidered the refusal but declined to issue the visa. Id. ¶ 40.

Alireza Mehrabani, Mohammadsadegh Mehrabani Ardekani's U.S. citizen father, filed a Form I-130 for his son in 2011. Compl. ¶ 46. Mehrabani Ardekani appeared for a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara in 2019. Id. In 2020, the consular refused his visa under TRIG. Id. ¶ 47.

In August 2021, the two IRGC Plaintiffs, their two U.S. citizen family members (“U.S. Citizen Plaintiffs”), and Pars Equality Center (“Pars”)-a nonprofit-sued Defendants for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2), the INA, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. They allege that Defendants' actions in denying the visas under TRIG were arbitrary and capricious because they were “based on legal error; failed to consider all relevant factors; [were]...