Morales v. Mayorkas: When a 17-Month Wait Fails the ‘Unreasonable-Delay’ Test
United States District Court, Southern District of California – June 7 2024
1. Why this case matters
After Department of State v. Muñoz narrowed constitutional challenges to consular delays, district courts have split on when an alien-fiancé case can still survive under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Morales v. Mayorkas lands firmly on the skeptical side: Judge Roger T. Benitez held that a 17-month pause in “administrative processing” for a K-1 visa is not yet unreasonable under the six-factor TRAC framework, dismissing the APA and Mandamus claims without prejudice.
2. Factual backdrop
| Timeline | Event |
| Apr. 7 2021 | U.S. citizen Josaihas Morales files I-129F for Russian fiancée Alla Tereschenko. |
| July 12 2022 | USCIS approves petition and forwards to U.S. Embassy, Warsaw. |
| Jan. 18 2023 | Consular interview; case placed in § 221(g) “administrative processing.” |
| Sept. 29 2023 | Complaint filed (nine months after interview). |
| Dec. 26 2023 | Amended complaint adds Fifth-Amendment claim. |
| June 7 2024 | Court grants government’s motion to dismiss. |
Morales, a Border Patrol agent, argued the delay imperils his pregnant fiancée, now living in Tijuana, and exposes them both to personal risk and economic hardship. casemine.com
3. Procedural posture & core arguments
Jurisdiction. The government first insisted that consular “refusal” deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, but Judge Benitez agreed with Plaintiffs that a § 221(g) refusal pending further checks is not a final decision.
Merits. The government then argued:
- The delay (17 months post-interview) is reasonable under TRAC.
- Forcing adjudication would “move Plaintiffs to the front of the line,” burdening agency priorities.
- Muñoz forecloses any due-process liberty interest in a fiancée’s admission.
4. Key holdings
| Issue | Court’s ruling | Take-away |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Present, because the visa is still in process and not finally denied. | Courts can reach the merits even when a case is marked “refused.” |
| APA / Mandamus | Dismissed without prejudice; 17-month span “falls within the normal range” in the Ninth Circuit, especially given agency queueing concerns. | Plaintiffs must show something beyond “the passage of time and desire for speed.” |
| Due-process claim | Dismissed with prejudice under Muñoz and Kerry v. Din. | Constitutional avenue is effectively closed for spousal or fiancé entry delays. |
5. The TRAC calculus in practice
- Rule of reason (most important). Delay judged from interview date; anything under ≈ 2 years is “generally not unreasonable” in Ninth-Circuit cases such as Yavari (12 mos.) and Zadeh (15 mos.).
- Congressional timetable. § 1571(b)’s 180-day goal is merely “precatory.”
- Human welfare. Court acknowledged hardship but found it offset by equal harms to other applicants.
- Impact on competing priorities. Fast-tracking one petition “moves all others back one space”—a strong point for the agency.
5–6. Prejudice & bad faith. Neutral; no allegation of animus, but hardship alone did not tilt the balance.
Net result: two factors favor government, four are neutral—insufficient for mandamus.
6. Practitioner takeaways
| Scenario | Strategic advice |
| < 18 months post-interview in the Ninth Circuit | Be prepared for dismissal; gather evidence of special circumstances (medical emergencies, security threats, statutory deadlines) to distinguish from mere “run-of-the-mill” delay. |
| > 30 months post-interview or extreme hardship | Ninth-Circuit precedent (e.g., Patel, 8-year delay) suggests stronger TRAC showing; re-file or amend once delay grows. |
| Forum shopping | Contrast with Hassan v. Dillard (D. Minn. 20-month delay survived motion to dismiss). District and circuit choice can be outcome-determinative. |
| Constitutional claims | Post-Muñoz, drop due-process theories unless facts involve U.S.-soil liberty deprivation unrelated to admission of the alien relative. |
| Evidence package | Document every request for status, FOIA results, and hardship affidavits; they may tip TRAC factors 3 & 5 if delay stretches on. |
7. Comparative lens: Morales vs. Hassan
| Point of divergence | Morales (S.D. Cal.) | Hassan (D. Minn.) |
| Delay length | 17 months | 20 months |
| Outcome | APA/mandamus dismissed (delay reasonable) | APA/mandamus survives (delay may be unreasonable) |
| View of § 221(g) refusal | Not final, but still counts in calculating delay from interview | Not final; promises “another adjudication” weakens government’s finality claim |
| Circuit atmosphere | Ninth Circuit historically tolerant of ≤ 2-year waits | Eighth Circuit increasingly skeptical after Loper Bright |
8. Bottom line
Morales v. Mayorkas signals that in the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs challenging K-1 visa delays must generally endure more than a year and a half of post-interview limbo before courts will entertain TRAC-based relief. While the door stays open—dismissal was without prejudice—the opinion underscores that “administrative processing” suits live or die on finely tuned TRAC allegations, not on constitutional rhetoric now foreclosed by Muñoz.