A federal judge has rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three foreign nationals against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs, who applied for EB-1A visas reserved for individuals with \u201cextraordinary abilities,\u201d argue that the government has unreasonably and unlawfully delayed processing their applications. The ruling allows the case to move forward, requiring the State Department to issue a final decision on the long-pending petitions.<\/p>\n
The case, Lyazat Tolymbekova, et al. v. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, et al., involves three plaintiffs \u2014 a Kazakh metallurgist, a Russian project manager, and a Russian makeup artist \u2014 whose EB-1A visa applications have been stuck in administrative processing for more than 16 months.<\/p>\n
Their applications were placed under \u00a7 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits consular officers to deny visas pending additional information, the Tampa Free Press reported.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs contend that the prolonged delay has imposed severe personal and professional hardships. Lyazat Tolymbekova, for instance, has been separated from her U.S. citizen daughter, missing her college graduation and being unable to support her during a medical crisis.<\/p>\n
The other plaintiffs likewise say the uncertainty surrounding their applications has forced them to put both careers and family plans on hold, the outlet added.<\/p>\n
In its motion to dismiss, the government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally shields a consular officer\u2019s final visa decision from judicial scrutiny.<\/p>\n
But Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui rejected that argument, noting that a \u00a7 221(g) refusal is not a final decision, since the State Department\u2019s own guidance tells applicants their cases will be re-adjudicated once processing is complete. The court stressed that nonreviewability applies only to final determinations.<\/p>\n
Faruqui also dismissed the government\u2019s sovereign immunity claim, ruling that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) waives immunity in cases where plaintiffs seek injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.<\/p>\n
The judge concluded that the State Department has a \u201cclear, nondiscretionary duty\u201d to either issue or refuse a visa once an application is properly filed \u2014 a duty it has failed to fulfill in this case.<\/p>\n
Faruqui cited State Department regulations requiring consular officers to act on visa applications and deliver a final decision. He also invoked the Accardi doctrine, which holds that federal agencies must adhere to their own rules and procedures.<\/p>\n
While Faruqui did not rule on whether the delays were \u201cunreasonable,\u201d his decision allows the case to proceed, setting up a fuller legal battle over the plaintiffs\u2019 claims. The ruling leaves open the possibility that the court could ultimately order the government to issue a final decision.<\/p>\n
In June following the successful US airstrike on Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities, Rubio defended the action in a fiery interview with CBS News\u2019 Margaret Brennan while correcting several of her claims.<\/p>\n
Brennan asked Rubio if the United States had \u201cintelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization\u201d of the uranium. Rubio, who also serves as National Security Advisor, responded sharply, asserting that whether or not the Supreme Leader gave such an order was immaterial because the regime was already pursuing a nuclear weapon.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media all the time. That\u2019s an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon,\u201d Rubio said.<\/p>\n
WATCH:<\/p>\n