{"id":430,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=430"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"aldurra-state-department-apa-visa-delay-trac-factors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=430","title":{"rendered":"Aldurra v. State Department \u2014 S.D. Cal. Lets APA Visa-Delay Claim Proceed but Dismisses Due-Process Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Aldurra v. United States Department of State<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-01322<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Administrative Procedure Act, agency action unreasonably delayed, TRAC factors, visa adjudication delays, Fifth Amendment due process<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Mudhar Ibrahim Khalid Aldurra is a U.S. citizen who lives in San Diego. He filed an immigrant visa petition for his mother, Lubna Mohammed Abdo Al-Qayisi, an Iraqi citizen living in Jordan. USCIS approved the petition in September 2022 and forwarded it to the National Visa Center. After processing at NVC, the case was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Amman for an interview, which took place on September 24, 2023. The consular officer asked for additional information after the interview, which Al-Qayisi provided two days later. Since then, the case has remained in “administrative processing” with no decision.<\/p>\n

Aldurra sued the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Amman, the Secretary of State, and the Embassy’s Charg\u00e9 d’Affaires in May 2025. He alleged two claims: an Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim that the visa adjudication has been “unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed” under 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 555(b), and a Fifth Amendment due-process claim. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the APA claim and granted it as to the due-process claim with leave to amend.<\/p>\n

On the APA claim, the court rejected the defendants’ three arguments. First, the absence of a hard statutory deadline for visa adjudications does not bar an APA unreasonable-delay claim. Section 555(b) requires agencies to conclude matters “within a reasonable time,” and a plaintiff alleging a violation of that requirement states a cognizable claim. Second, the court declined to follow the D.C. Circuit’s unpublished Karimova v. Abate<\/em> decision, noting that even district courts in D.C. have refused to follow it because of its non-precedential status. Third, on whether to apply the multi-factor framework from Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC<\/em> (“TRAC”) at the pleading stage, the court joined the line of California district court cases that have declined to do so. The TRAC factors are factually intensive and would require the court to look beyond the face of the complaint, which is generally inappropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage.<\/p>\n

On the due-process claim, the court dismissed but granted leave to amend. The complaint did not allege facts supporting either a procedural or substantive due-process theory. Procedural due process requires identifying a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest and a denial of adequate procedures. Substantive due process requires a deprivation that shocks the conscience. The complaint contained no facts addressing either set of elements. Aldurra was given a chance to amend.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n