Mahmood v. Bitter: A Ninth-Circuit District Court Lets an APA Visa-Delay Claim Proceed—While Axing Arbitrary-and-Capricious and Due-Process Counts
United States District Court, Western District of Washington – May 29 2025
1. Case significance
In the growing wave of lawsuits challenging “administrative-processing” stalls in fiancé-visa cases, Judge Tana Lin’s opinion in Mahmood v. Bitter strikes a middle path:
- Counts I–II (APA § 706(1)/Mandamus). Survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the Court finds the government still owes a nondiscretionary duty to finish adjudicating a K-1 petition that has languished 19 months after a § 221(g) refusal.
- Count III (APA § 706(2)). Dismissed with prejudice: no “final agency action.”
- Count IV (Fifth-Amendment due process). Dismissed with prejudice under Department of State v. Muñoz (2024).
Result: the unreasonable-delay claims march forward; the rest of the complaint is gone.
2. Factual snapshot
| Timeline | Milestone |
| Mar. 25 2022 | Engagement ceremony in Multan, Pakistan. |
| May 11 2023 | USCIS approves I-129F petition. |
| Aug 8 2023 | National Visa Center creates case; DS-160 filed next day. |
| Oct 31 2023 | Consular interview in Islamabad → § 221(g) refusal + request for academic records; passport retained. |
| May 29 2025 | 19 months post-interview; application still in “administrative processing.” |
Plaintiff Sonya Mahmood, a Seattle physician, alleges the delay is jeopardizing her fertility and causing work-disrupting anxiety.
3. Procedural posture & arguments
- Government motion: Dismiss all counts, insisting the § 221(g) refusal is a final adjudication and the 19-month wait is reasonable; cite Karimova v. Abate and other D.C.-Circuit cases.
- Plaintiff cross-motion: Immediate summary judgment; no “rule of reason” justifies the delay.
Judge Lin denied both extreme requests: the delay claim remains, but discovery is required before TRAC balancing.
4. Key holdings
| Issue | Court’s conclusion | Citation |
| Is a § 221(g) ‘refusal’ final? | No. Placement in administrative processing shows the matter is still being worked; State’s own notice promises “another adjudication.” | Mahmood, slip op. at 15 – 17. |
| Duty to adjudicate? | Statute (8 U.S.C. § 1202(d)) and 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(a) impose a clear, mandatory obligation to decide the visa. | at 12. |
| TRAC at the pleading stage? | Full six-factor analysis premature; absence of any articulated “rule of reason” makes the unreasonable-delay claim plausible. | at 20 – 21. |
| Arbitrary-and-capricious claim? | Requires final action under APA § 704—dismissed with prejudice. | at 22. |
| Due-process claim? | Foreclosed by Muñoz: no fundamental liberty interest in fiancé’s admission. | at 23; Muñoz (2024). |
5. Practical takeaways for immigration litigators
| Scenario | Litigation guidance |
| ≈ 18–24 months post-interview in Ninth Circuit | Mahmood suggests APA delay claims can survive dismissal if plaintiffs plead lack of any “rule of reason” and document unanswered inquiries. |
| Adding § 706(2) theories | Avoid unless you have a final decision; courts now dismiss these counts with prejudice. |
| Constitutional counts after Muñoz | Drop them; every West-Coast district court has followed Muñoz in fiancé, spouse, parent, and sibling delays. |
| Discovery focus | Seek State-Department production on queue management and security-screening timelines to challenge factor 1 (rule of reason) and factor 4 (queue jumping). |
| Comparative forum shopping | Unlike Morales v. Mayorkas (S.D. Cal., 17-month delay dismissed) and Hassan v. Dillard (D. Minn., 20-month delay survives), Mahmood continues the split—underscoring venue choice. |
6. Broader context
Mahmood deepens the post-Muñoz divide over whether § 221(g) refusals end judicial review. Judge Lin aligns with the “majority Ninth-Circuit” view (see Khosravi v. Rubio) that promises of further processing belie finality.
With Chevron gone and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual no longer commanding deference, more district courts may scrutinize unexplained queue delays—especially where passports are retained, effectively confining applicants abroad.
7. Bottom line
The decision means discovery—emails, queue data, security-check logs—now looms for the State Department. If it cannot articulate a concrete “rule of reason” for a 19-month administrative hold, Mahmood could become another precedent ordering the agency to move a languishing K-1 case forward, even as constitutional routes remain closed.