Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Delayed Visa Applications to Proceed

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three foreign nationals against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ruling that the case can move forward after months of legal uncertainty. The plaintiffs, who claim that their visa applications have been stuck in administrative limbo for over a year, will now have an opportunity to argue that the U.S. government has failed to meet its duty to process their petitions within a reasonable time.

The case, Lyazat Tolymbekova, et al. v. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, et al., centers on three individuals from Kazakhstan and Russia who each applied for EB-1A visas—immigrant visas granted to people who demonstrate “extraordinary ability” in their fields. This visa category is often used by professionals such as scientists, artists, athletes, and business leaders who can show evidence of national or international recognition for their achievements.

According to court filings, the plaintiffs’ visa applications have been delayed for more than sixteen months. During this time, the cases have remained under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows U.S. consular officers to temporarily refuse visa issuance pending further administrative processing or the submission of additional information.

The plaintiffs argue that such an extended delay is both unreasonable and unlawful. They contend that the State Department has failed to carry out its legal obligation to issue a final decision—either approval or denial—on properly filed applications. The lawsuit seeks a court order compelling the government to take action and conclude the administrative process.

Human Impact Behind the Legal Battle

Beyond the technicalities of immigration law, the lawsuit highlights the significant personal toll of prolonged visa delays. Plaintiff Lyazat Tolymbekova, a metallurgist from Kazakhstan, says she has been separated from her U.S. citizen daughter for nearly two years due to the government’s inaction. The delay, she explained, has prevented her from being present at important family milestones, including her daughter’s college graduation, and from providing support during a serious medical issue.

The other two plaintiffs—both from Russia, one a project manager and the other a professional makeup artist—reported that their uncertain immigration status has forced them to suspend long-term career and family plans. They say the indefinite wait has not only created emotional stress but also caused financial and professional setbacks, as potential employers and collaborators hesitate to work with individuals whose immigration status remains unresolved.

Government Seeks Dismissal

In response to the lawsuit, the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the case. The government’s lawyers cited the long-standing doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which holds that decisions made by consular officers on visa matters are generally immune from judicial review.

This doctrine is based on the principle that visa issuance and denial fall under the executive branch’s authority, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. Courts traditionally refrain from interfering in such decisions, viewing them as part of the government’s sovereign discretion.

The government also argued that sovereign immunity—the legal protection that prevents lawsuits against the United States without its consent—should bar the case from proceeding.

The Judge’s Ruling

Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui rejected both arguments, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to move forward. In his ruling, Faruqui emphasized that consular nonreviewability applies only to final visa determinations. A refusal under Section 221(g), he explained, is not a final decision but rather a temporary pause pending further review.

“The State Department’s own guidance indicates that cases placed under Section 221(g) remain open and subject to continued processing,” Faruqui wrote. “Because the agency itself has not treated these cases as final, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability does not prevent judicial consideration.”

The judge also dismissed the government’s claim of sovereign immunity, noting that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a limited waiver of immunity in cases where plaintiffs seek to compel federal agencies to take legally required actions. Since the plaintiffs were not asking for monetary damages but rather for the court to order the State Department to fulfill its duties, the lawsuit was found to fall within the scope of the APA.

Faruqui’s opinion underscored that the State Department has a “clear, nondiscretionary duty” to act on visa applications once they are properly filed. The agency, he said, must either issue or refuse the visa—it cannot simply delay indefinitely without explanation.

Legal Principles at Stake

The judge also cited the Accardi doctrine, a legal principle requiring federal agencies to follow their own regulations and procedures. Under this doctrine, the government cannot ignore or sidestep the rules it has set for itself. In this case, the State Department’s regulations require consular officers to make timely decisions on visa applications, something the plaintiffs claim the agency failed to do.

By applying this doctrine, Faruqui effectively reminded the government that it must adhere to its own standards of procedure and fairness. While the ruling does not resolve the broader question of whether the delays were “unreasonable,” it ensures that the plaintiffs will have a chance to present their case in full.

Broader Implications

The case has drawn attention among immigration attorneys and advocates, many of whom view it as part of a larger issue involving lengthy processing times for visas, especially those requiring administrative review. In recent years, applicants from various countries have reported extended delays in the adjudication of employment-based and family-based visas, sometimes waiting years without receiving a final decision.

Legal experts say the ruling could set an important precedent for applicants whose cases are stalled under Section 221(g). By reaffirming that courts can intervene when a visa application has not received a final decision, the judgment may encourage other applicants to challenge what they see as excessive and unexplained administrative delays.

Immigration lawyers also note that the decision balances the executive branch’s authority over immigration with the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that agencies follow the law. “This ruling reinforces that there are limits to bureaucratic delay,” one immigration attorney commented. “When an agency has a legal duty to act, it can’t simply hide behind the argument that its decisions are untouchable.”

Next Steps

The case will now proceed to the next phase, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the delay in processing their visas is “unreasonable” under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. The government, in turn, will be required to provide evidence explaining the reasons for the delay and whether the pending applications are being actively reviewed.

If the court eventually finds that the delay violates the law, it could order the State Department to issue final decisions on the applications within a set period. Such an outcome would not guarantee that the visas will be approved, but it would force the agency to act—ending the uncertainty that has lingered for more than a year.

For the three applicants, the judge’s ruling marks an important step forward in what has been a long and frustrating process. For the broader immigration community, it represents a reminder that even within a complex and highly discretionary system, accountability remains essential.