A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has shut down an Iranian family's attempt to force the State Department and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to finish processing their immigrant visas, leaving them exactly where they started: waiting. U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled that the family's roughly three-year wait, while "undoubtedly frustrating," did not cross the legal line into an unreasonable delay. The applicants, who interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara in January 2023, remain listed as refused and in 221(g) administrative processing.
Judge cites backlog and warns against "line-jumping"
In the case filed as Majlesi v. Rubio, Judge AliKhan walked through the six TRAC factors courts use to decide whether an agency has dragged its feet too long. She concluded that forcing the State Department to prioritize this family would simply "move all others back one space and produce no net gain," according to the Tampa Free Press. The court acknowledged that the family faces real financial and emotional strain, but held that those harms do not overcome the government's broad discretion to decide how to allocate limited consular resources. The suit named Rubio in his official capacity and asked the court to order the State Department to issue final decisions on the family's immigrant-visa petitions.
How courts weigh "unreasonable" delay
Federal judges rely on the TRAC framework to evaluate claims of unreasonable delay under mandamus and the Administrative Procedure Act, weighing how long the applicant has waited, what harm that wait has caused, and what speeding up one case would do to the rest of the agency's workload. A recent D.D.C. opinion notes that courts have generally treated delays of five or more years as clearly unreasonable, while waits of three to five years often are not, GovInfo explains. Judges in the district have also split over whether a 221(g) refusal is a "final" decision, with some rulings, including opinions by Judge AliKhan, treating placement in administrative processing as a matter of timing that can be reviewed rather than a final consular judgment, according to Justia.
What Section 221(g) means for applicants
Under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a consular officer may refuse an application and place it in administrative processing while the post gathers additional information; timing varies by case, according to the U.S. Department of State. The Eslami family told the court they were told administrative processing would take about six months after their January 2023 interview in Ankara, yet their CEAC status remained listed as "refused for administrative processing" more than two years later, according to the Tampa Free Press. In other words, the temporary holding pattern has started to feel a lot more permanent from their side of the glass.
What comes next
The dismissal ends this round of litigation and effectively sends the family back to the same consular queue they were already in. The plaintiffs can ask the judge to reconsider or take their case to an appeals court, although what that would mean in practical terms for the timing of their visas is far from clear. Immigration organizations have urged courts to step in when administrative processing turns into a kind of indefinite limbo, arguing that prolonged delays deprive applicants of their statutory right to a timely adjudication, as the American Immigration Council and others have explained. For now, though, the family stays listed as refused and in administrative processing while the Department of State continues its checks.
Legal implications
The ruling reinforces a familiar pattern in D.C. federal court: judges are deeply reluctant to reshuffle consular lines unless the delay is both lengthy and largely unexplained. It also underscores the ongoing tension between individual hardship and judicial hesitation to second-guess how the State Department deploys its staff and resources. That push-and-pull is likely to shape how similar mandamus suits over visa delays fare in the months and years ahead.
