Judge Rules Against Govern GPT, Inc. and Founder, Finding No ‘Non-Discretionary Duty’ to Expedite Administrative Review
A U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia has granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a technology startup and its Iranian-Canadian founder, Mohammed Amini, over the protracted administrative processing of his O-1 non-immigrant visa.
The ruling, issued in the case of Govern GPT, Inc. and Mohammed Amini v. Rubio, Bondi, and Hunt, determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify a “crystal-clear legal duty” on the part of U.S. officials to resolve the visa application more quickly.
Govern GPT, a Delaware-incorporated, Y Combinator-backed startup, and Amini, its founder, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and U.S. Consul General in Toronto Baxter Hunt, seeking a writ of mandamus and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had unreasonably delayed the resolution of Amini’s visa application, which was refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for further administrative processing following his interview in November 2023.
U.S. District Judge ruled that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court’s analysis focused on two main points:
- Improper Defendant: The court dismissed Attorney General Pamela Bondi from the case, agreeing with the defense that the complaint did not plausibly allege her role in the direct adjudication of Amini’s visa application. The court found the plaintiffs’ claim that the Department of Justice might be causing the delay to be too speculative for Article III jurisdiction, especially considering the transfer of relevant responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security.
- No Non-Discretionary Consular Duty: The core of the plaintiffs’ case rested on the argument that U.S. officials have a clear, non-discretionary duty to finalize administrative processing. The court rejected this, noting that the Toronto Consulate had already discharged its duty to “issue or refuse” the visa when it issued the 221(g) refusal notice.
The court specifically addressed the plaintiffs’ reliance on 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e), which addresses the duty to reconsider a refusal.
The court found this regulation inapplicable because Amini’s 221(g) notice instructed him that “No further action is required on your part,” indicating the refusal was not based on grounds that could be overcome by the presentation of additional evidence.
Furthermore, Amini had not “adduced further evidence” as required for reconsideration under the regulation.
The ruling underscores the significant discretion afforded to consular officers in the visa review process, particularly when cases are flagged for administrative processing, which often involves security checks.
The absence of a “specific, unequivocal command” in law or regulation requiring expedited action on administrative processing proved fatal to the lawsuit.
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.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
