A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Canadian citizen who alleged that the U.S. government took too long to process his high-skilled worker visa. The ruling, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, effectively ends Ian Rudd’s legal attempt to force the State Department to make a final decision on his application.
Ian Rudd, a Canadian professional, applied for an EB-2 visa—a category reserved for noncitizens with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities.
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved his initial petition in late 2022, the process hit a wall following his interview at the U.S. Consulate in Montreal in September 2024.
The consular officer did not grant the visa. Instead, the application was “refused” under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and placed into “administrative processing.” Despite Rudd providing supplemental resumes and information as requested, eighteen months passed without a final “yes” or “no.”
READ: Trump Slams “Deranged” MTG As Fuller Flips The Page In Georgia Special Election
Frustrated by the limbo, Rudd sued the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials, claiming the 500-plus-day wait caused him significant professional and financial harm.
The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the court had no authority to dictate how fast a consular officer must work once a visa has been technically refused. Judge Moss agreed, basing much of his decision on the lack of a specific legal requirement for speed in these circumstances.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act, courts can only step in if an agency fails to perform a “nondiscretionary duty”—essentially, a task the law says they must do.
“The Court finds… that 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) does not impose a clear legal duty on consular officers to re-adjudicate a visa application that has been refused and placed in administrative processing,” Judge Moss wrote in the opinion.
The ruling highlighted that immigration and the “admission and exclusion of foreign nationals” are areas where the executive branch has broad power and the courts have very little.
Rudd had argued that since he was in “administrative processing,” the government had not yet discharged its duty to render a final decision. However, the court found that the initial refusal under Section 221(g) counted as a decision under the law. The fact that the government could reopen the case later did not mean they were legally required to do so within a specific timeframe.
Judge Moss noted that because there was no “crystal-clear legal duty” to act within the eighteen months Rudd had been waiting, the court could not interfere.
With this dismissal, Rudd’s claims under the APA, the Mandamus Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act are officially closed. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the Mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining claims for failure to state a legal case.
“The Court will, accordingly, grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss,” the opinion concluded, leaving Rudd’s visa status in the same hands it started in: the U.S. Department of State.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
