Filed Date: April 7, 2021
Closed Date: Oct. 5, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about challenges to the visa restrictions promulgated by Presidents Trump and Biden in the wake of COVID-19.
On April 7, 2021, a group of more than 180 noncitizens seeking visas, their U.S. citizen petitioners, International Teacher Exchange Services and Life Adventures (corporations seeking employment-based nonimmigrant visas), and the Association of Cultural Exchange Programs and the Alliance for International Exchange (associations which assist in timely visa filing) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the U.S. State Department seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)-(2). They sought an order declaring the State Department’s non-adjudication of visas was unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and an injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing its “no-visa” policy. The case was assigned to Judge James Boasberg.
The lawsuit arose as a result of the State Department’s interpretation of various Presidential Proclamations issued during the outbreak of COVID-19. As of April 2021, the State Department interpreted the Proclamations to place restrictions on visa issuance and entry into the United States for individuals physically present in China, Iran, Brazil, UK, Ireland, South Africa, and the 26 countries in the Schengen area. As a result, visa applications for individuals from those countries and India had not been adjudicated. The Secretary of State revised the visa procedures in April 2021 to permit a National Interest Exception for noncitizens seeking an immigrant visa or K-1 nonimmigrant visa used for the fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens to come to the United States.
In June 2021, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, summary judgment after amending their complaint twice to reflect evolving circumstances regarding visas. The defendants in turn filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s “no-visa” policy for individuals seeking visas from countries listed in the President’s Proclamation was “arbitrary and capricious” and in excess of the State Department’s authority. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing and the Secretary of State’s actions in this sphere are not subject to judicial review.
On October 5, 2021, the granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss and summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. In its findings, the court dismissed as moot the claims for those plaintiffs who had already had their claim adjudicated; dismissed for lack of standing the claims of plaintiffs seeking immigrant and nonimmigrant K-1 visas and associated petitioners and corporations; and dismissed for lack of standing the claims of the association and corporation plaintiffs who petitioned for nonimmigrant visas.
The court referenced two related cases in coming to its determination. First, Milligan v. Pompeo (No. 1:20-cv-02631, D.D.C.), U.S. citizens and their non-citizen fiancé(e)s alleged the Department of State was unreasonably delaying the processing of their K-1 visas. On November 25, 2020 the Department of State instructed its posts worldwide to schedule the plaintiffs for interview regardless of whether they are subject to a COVID-19 Proclamation.
Second, Tate v. Pompeo (No. 1:20-cv-03249, D.D.C.), nonimmigrant visa applicants under the “O” category for “individuals with extraordinary ability” alleged the Department of State was unlawfully applying COVID-19 Proclamations as a basis for their visa refusal and/or the Department otherwise unlawfully delayed adjudication of their visa applications. On January 17, 2021 the court enjoined the Department of State from applying the COVID-19 Proclamations as a basis for suspending the adjudication of the plaintiffs’ applications or as a legal basis for visa refusal.
Ultimately, the court awarded the nine remaining plaintiffs awaiting their visa adjudication summary judgment.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Tucker Gribble (3/9/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59803780/parties/kinsley-v-blinken/
Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)
Bless, Jesse Matthew (District of Columbia)
Joseph, Jeffrey Dean (District of Columbia)
Kuck, Charles Herman (District of Columbia)
Carilli, Joseph F. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59803780/kinsley-v-blinken/
Last updated April 12, 2025, 11:15 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0: Travel Ban Challenges
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 7, 2021
Closing Date: Oct. 5, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
180 noncitizens seeking visas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States (Washington D.C., District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border: