IRANIAN NATIONALS

Adjudicator flowchart released by State Department in litigation discovery.

ARE YOU EXPERIENCING AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THE ADJUDICATION OF A TRAVEL BAN WAIVER?

You are not alone and we are here to help. Many Iranian national visa applicants refused under the travel ban are supposed to be automatically considered for waivers of the ban. However, most applicants experience unreasonable delays in the adjudication of their waivers. Part of the reason for the delays is that the hands of consular officers have been tied, as the Visa Office is unlawfully requiring its concurrence for all approvals. 

One solution that we recommend is a writ of mandamus, a fancy term for a lawsuit with the goal of compelling the government to do what it already has a duty to do. After filing a writ of mandamus, a federal court can order the State Department to adjudicate a waiver under the travel ban. A writ of mandamus does not guarantee the grant of a waiver from the travel ban.


Petitions for writ of mandamus have proved to be successful in many cases, by compelling the State Department to make its decisions on waivers, or face discovery, prolonged litigation, and the scrutiny of the courts and the media. Further, the petitions can be brought on behalf of individual families, or a joinder action with multiple families who are similarly-situated.


For further information on a writ of mandamus and how to initiate the process, drop us a line at curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com or 714-661-3446 (Same # for Telegram). When you rely on the Law Offices of Curtis Morrison, your rights will be protected.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Do you have experience with mandamus lawsuits for Iranian nationals?


Yes. The first case we filed on behalf of Iranian American families and couples was Darchini v. Pompeo. We are currently preparing to file a second case representing Iranian American families and couples that will be filed in September 2019. 


Will petitioning for a writ of mandamus jeopardize our visa application?


This is a common misconception. In our view, when a case is in litigation it is the one time we can know for sure the State Department will act in good faith and fairly adjudicate an application, because its own Department of Justice attorney will be advising them to do so. Further, the court, us as Plaintiff attorneys, and possibly, the media, will be watching as well.  In the extremely unlikely event the State Dept denied a waiver or refused to issue a visa as a result of litigation, that conduct would be what is called "bad faith" and is unlawful. Under a case called Bivens, as victims of this bad faith, you could be entitled to money damages. Further, the government could not raise the "consular nonreviewability" defense because bad faith is an exception to that principal. Simply, it would be a scandal for the State Department to retaliate against visa applicant litigants, and thus is extremely unlikely to happen.


What are the advantages to joinder actions, with multiple plaintiffs?


First, joinder actions make litigation more affordable for more plaintiffs. Secondly, in a joinder action, all plaintiffs benefit in legal arguments around the aggregate hardship experienced by the entire group.


Do participants in mandamus lawsuits have to go to court?


No. We, as your attorneys, will attend court on your behalf. However, if you would like to come, you are more than welcome to do so.


If we participate in a mandamus action, can you guarantee the outcome?


No. Attorneys cannot guarantee the outcome of judicial proceedings. However, we can tell you what has happened in similar litigation in the past.  For example, in Mosleh v Pompeo, we represented 7 Yemeni families who all received waivers of the travel ban within 45 days of the day we filed the case. Here's the timeline on how that happened:


  • 5/13/2019 - We filed complaint & motion for preliminary injunction with Eastern District of California, in Fresno, California.
  • 6/18/2019 - We filed a motion to supplement our evidence with the evidence from the Emami case
  • 6/19/2019 - Judge Lawrence O'Neill issued order granting our motion to allow supplemental evidence, and ordering government to provide supplemental information to the court within 14 days.
  • 6/27/2019 - All of our plaintiffs received email notices indicating that their waivers had been approved, and that visas could be issued upon receipt of updated medical examinations, police reports, and submission of passports. This happened 45 days from when complaint was filed.
  • 7/03/2019 US Embassy in Djibouti issued first two visas. This happened 51 days from when complaint was filed.
  • 7/05/2019 Govt makes filing to court explaining it is not providing the requested information because "all of the waiver applications have either been adjudicated or will be adjudicated shortly."