In a decision handed down Monday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of Iranian nationals who claimed the U.S. government has taken too long to process their immigrant visas.
U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled that while the family’s three-year wait has been “undoubtedly frustrating,” it does not yet meet the legal definition of an “unreasonable delay.” The ruling is a significant win for the State Department and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who were named as defendants in the case.
A 16-Year Journey Stalls in Turkey
The legal battle, titled Majlesi v. Rubio, involves Shamseddin Eslami, his wife, and their three children. Their path toward American residency began in 2010 when Eslami’s brother, a U.S. citizen, filed a petition for the family. It took nearly a decade for the case to move through the system, leading to a formal interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, in January 2023.
Following that interview, the family was told their visas were being “refused” under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a common administrative hurdle where a consular officer puts a case on hold to gather more information or perform background checks. The family was told the process would take about six months.
By March 2025—more than two years after the interview—the applications were still listed as “refused for administrative processing,” prompting the family to sue to force a final decision.
The “Line-Jumping” Dilemma
In her memorandum opinion, Judge AliKhan addressed the government’s argument that the court had no power to review the case at all. The government relied on the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability,” which generally prevents judges from second-guessing a diplomat’s decision to grant or deny a visa.
The judge disagreed with the government on that point, noting that because the visa hadn’t been permanently denied yet, the court still had the authority to look at the timing of the process.
However, when it came to the actual delay, the judge found the family’s claims fell short. She applied a set of legal standards known as the “TRAC factors,” which courts use to decide if a government agency is moving too slowly.
One of the biggest hurdles for the plaintiffs was the concept of “competing priorities.” The judge noted that moving this specific family to the front of the line would simply push other applicants back.
“A judicial order putting [the plaintiffs] at the head of the queue [would] simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain,” the judge wrote, citing previous court precedents.
Reality of the Backlog
The family had argued the delay caused them “extreme financial, professional, and emotional harm,” citing the high cost of living in Iran and the stress of living in bureaucratic limbo.
Judge AliKhan acknowledged these hardships as “unfortunate” but stated they weren’t enough to overcome the government’s broad discretion in how it manages its massive backlog of cases. She pointed out that under current case law, delays of three to five years are generally not considered unreasonable by the courts.
With this dismissal, the Eslami family remains in administrative processing, waiting for the State Department to make the final move.
READ: Over 36,000 Americans Home As Middle-East Evacuation Flights Outpace Demand
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
