1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Bahman Sharifian Jazi and Case No.: 25-cv-27 BEN Pouya Sharifian Jazi, 12

13 Plaintiffs,

14 v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

15 Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. [Dkt. 11]

18

19 This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ application for, and the Government’s 20 processing of, a Form I-130 alien relative immigration visa. Plaintiffs Bahman Sharifian 21 Jazi and Pouya Sharifian Jazi filed suit against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and 22 other government officials seeking mandamus and relief in the form of a final decision on 23 Pouya’s visa application. Previously, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 24 without prejudice without specifically addressing Count 3. See Order (dated April 25, 25 2025). Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration seeking an individualized ruling on 26 Count 3. Defendants have not responded. The motion for reconsideration is granted. 27 However, Plaintiffs’ claim under Count 3 is denied. 28 1 Count 3 is at most tangentially related to Pouya’s visa application. For Count 3, 2 Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants’ decision(s) to not issue the Congressionally allotted 3 number of Family-Sponsored Preference categories from FY-2018-2023 was arbitrary, 4 capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of law.” Complaint at ¶179. Plaintiffs 5 seek relief in the form of a judicial declaration that “Defendant Blinken’s decision to not 6 issue the annual allotment of Family-Sponsored Preference category visas for the current 7 and prior fiscal years as unlawful” and “an order compelling Defendant Blinken to issue 8 the annual allotment of Family-Sponsored Preference category visas for FY-2024.” 9 Complaint at p. 57. 10 First, the Court lacks jurisdiction to direct the Executive Branch to issue any 11 particular number of immigrant visas. “For more than a century, this Court has 12 recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental 13 sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune 14 from judicial control.’” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 702 (2018). “For reasons long 15 recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United 16 States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal 17 Government.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 305 (1993) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 18 U.S. 67, 81 (1976)). “[T]he decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully 19 placed with the President, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a 20 responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General.” U.S. ex 21 rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950). 22 Second, Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they can demonstrate neither 23 ripeness nor redressability. “Standing requires more than just a ‘keen interest in the 24 issue.’ It requires allegations—and, eventually, proof—that the plaintiff ‘personally’ 25 suffered a concrete and particularized injury in connection with the conduct about which 26 he complains.” Hawaii, 585 U.S. at 697–98 (citations omitted). Otherwise, a decision 27 will not redress the alleged harm to a plaintiff. This concept has sometimes been 28 described as having a traceability and a redressability component. Plaintiffs here cannot 1 satisfy these requirements for standing. Plaintiffs cannot show how the refusal of 2 Pouya’s visa application will change if the number of family preference visas issued had 3 exceeded the statutory floor of 226,000 in past years between 2018 and 2023, as Plaintiffs 4 allege. Neither declaratory relief nor mandamus relief would likely change Pouya’s visa 5 application outcome. Thus, Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. See Mirbod v. Blinken, 6 No. 3:24-CV-01430-CAB-MMP, 2025 WL 418518, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2025).1 7 Third, even if the Court enjoyed jurisdiction and Plaintiffs had standing, Plaintiffs 8 still have failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs allege that the government 9 is “wasting” family sponsored immigrant visas when it does not issue all of the 226,000 10 described in 8 U.S.C. §1151(c)(1)(B)(ii). But there is no apparent statutory requirement 11 that the State Department issue all of the family-preference visas available under the 12 annual limits in a given year. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege only that the wasting took place 13 in the past. They point to the number of visas issued two years ago under a different 14 administration. In contrast, Plaintiffs do not allege that less than 226,000 are being 15 issued this year. The State Department’s Visa Bulletin for August 2025 suggests 16 otherwise and observes that the fiscal year 2025 limit for family-sponsored preference 17 18 1 Mirbod wrote in terms equally applicable here: 19 Even assuming Plaintiffs have suffered an injury in the delay of 20 post-refusal re-adjudication of their visa applications, they fail 21 to demonstrate how their injury is traceable to Defendants’ action of not issuing all allotted family preference visas from 22 2018–2023. It is unclear to the Court how a delay in post- 23 refusal adjudication of Plaintiffs’ visa applications, in 2025, can be traced to Defendants’ decision to not issue all family 24 preference visas between 2018 and 2023, particularly when 25 Plaintiffs’ applications were initially considered and rejected in 2023. Though the bar for traceability is low, see Idaho 26 Conservation League v. Bonneville Power Admin., 83 F.4th 27 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court finds the connection 28 between the alleged injury and the complained-of action as too 1 immigrants is the statutory level of 226,000. See 2 https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2025/visa-bulletin- 3 for-august-2025.html (last visited, Aug. 20, 2025). Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed 4 to plausibly allege a claim for declaratory or mandamus relief because they allege no 5 facts stating a presently justiciable controversy. 6 Courts should act cautiously when reviewing matters entrusted to the Executive 7 Branch, especially those involving immigration, lest it alter the balance between co-equal 8 branches of government. For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is 9 granted. On reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ claim for Count 3 is denied because the Court 10 lacks jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, or the Plaintiffs have failed to 11 state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 20, 2025 _______________________________ 14 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28