Trump Travel Ban Sinks California Woman's Suit Over Iranian Husband's Visa

A federal judge has dismissed a California woman's lawsuit seeking to force action on her Iranian husband's long-delayed immigrant visa, ruling that a formal refusal issued under President Trump's travel ban gave her the only outcome the court could still provide. Parisa Sorbi had petitioned for her husband, Amirbahman Kalantarikhandani, in early 2023, but his case had languished for years before the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, finally issued a formal refusal worksheet this past May.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras dismissed Sorbi's suit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department, and embassy officials, according to the Tampa Free Press. Sorbi had alleged unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act after her husband completed his consular interview at the Ankara embassy in May 2024 and was placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision requires consular officers to mark an application as refused when a visa cannot be issued on the spot while background checks continue, a status that functions as an administrative pause rather than a final denial, according to Cohen, Tucker & Ades PC.

Sorbi filed suit in July 2025, before her husband's case was ever formally closed. By the time the Ankara embassy issued the formal refusal worksheet in May, embassy officials had determined Kalantarikhandani was ineligible for an immigrant visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing Presidential Proclamation 10998. That proclamation, which President Trump issued in December 2025 and which took effect in January 2026, suspended entry for nationals of designated countries of concern, including a full ban on Iran, per NAFSA.

Why the Refusal Made the Lawsuit Moot

Mandamus suits like Sorbi's are designed to compel an agency to finally act on a stalled application, not to dictate a favorable outcome, as explained by legal commentary on Section 221(g) litigation. Once the embassy issued its formal refusal, Contreras found the government had already given Sorbi the final agency action she sought, even though it wasn't the result she wanted. The judge wrote that Sorbi obtained the relief she had asked for despite not getting her hoped-for outcome, ruling that the court could no longer grant her an effective remedy.

Contreras denied Sorbi's motion for default judgment, denied her motion for expedited consideration, and granted the federal government's motion to dismiss. He also dismissed the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia as a named defendant and denied Sorbi leave to amend her complaint to challenge the visa denial itself.

A Ban That Erased the Family Exception

What made this case different from earlier travel-ban litigation is that Presidential Proclamation 10998 eliminated the broad categorical exception that had previously let American citizens use family-reunification channels, including IR-1 spousal visas, for relatives from fully restricted countries. According to the U.S. Department of State, that exception vanished when the proclamation took effect at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2026, and the proclamation itself stated that immigrant visas for family members would no longer receive that broad categorical treatment.

Kalantarikhandani had requested expedited processing in early 2025, arguing that his presence was crucial to support Sorbi emotionally as she cared for her mother, who has severe chronic medical conditions. Embassy officials declined the request in March 2025, saying the situation did not meet expedite criteria, though they told him they would notify him once administrative processing was complete. Sorbi, a California resident, had also asserted protections under the Due Process Clause and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but Contreras's ruling did not disturb the underlying visa refusal.

Consular Nonreviewability Blocks the Door

The doctrine of consular nonreviewability shields a consular official's decision to issue or withhold a visa from judicial review, and Contreras found that the statutory provision and the presidential proclamation together satisfied the requirement that the government offer a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial. That standard traces back to the Supreme Court's rulings in Kleindienst v. Mandel and Kerry v. Din, which hold that courts will not look behind a consular refusal once the government cites a valid statutory ground of inadmissibility, according to a summary from Congress.gov. Consular decisions that touch a citizen's rights still require that facially legitimate and bona fide reason, but courts generally will not demand the underlying classified or investigative details behind it.

The legal terrain narrowed further in June 2024, when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Department of State v. Muñoz that American citizens do not hold a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the visa proceedings or entry of their noncitizen spouses, according to Justia. That decision, written by Justice Barrett, reinforced consular nonreviewability over marital constitutional claims, leaving spouses of foreign nationals with few avenues once a formal refusal is on the books.

One Narrow Path, and a Wider Legal Fight

Proclamation 10998 does leave open a case-by-case national interest waiver, granted at the discretion of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security, for applicants who can show their entry serves a significant U.S. interest and that denial would cause undue hardship, per the State Department. That path remains narrow, and nothing in the record indicates Kalantarikhandani has been granted one.

The dismissal comes amid a broader wave of litigation challenging Rubio's visa policies elsewhere. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in New York ruled that a separate State Department policy suspending immigrant visa processing across 75 countries exceeded Rubio's statutory authority, as Hoodline reported at the time. In June, a Rhode Island federal judge similarly vacated USCIS policies that had frozen immigration benefit decisions for nationals of the 39 travel-ban countries, calling the hold arbitrary. Those rulings targeted specific administrative freezes rather than the presidential travel ban itself, which under Section 212(f) remains a formidable barrier for family reunification involving nationals of fully restricted countries like Iran.

The case also unfolds against a backdrop of escalating friction between Washington and Tehran. Rubio designated Iran a State Sponsor of Wrongful Detention in February, a first-of-its-kind label that authorized additional visa restrictions, passport limitations, and targeted sanctions against Iranian entities. For Sorbi and Kalantarikhandani, that broader geopolitical standoff has now translated into a closed courtroom door, with the couple's separation resolved procedurally rather than on the merits of their case.