SYRACUSE, NY – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Yemeni man and his wife against the U.S. Department of State and Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the denial of an immigrant visa, rejecting the couple’s claims of discrimination, bad faith, and breach of contract.
U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued the ruling Monday in a case filed by Mariam Faisal Abdo M. Al-Harbi and Sulaiman Ahmed Hamood Al-Madhloom, who sued after the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia denied Al-Madhloom’s visa based on allegations of smuggling—a classification under immigration law that renders applicants inadmissible.
The couple’s complaint, filed in December, claimed the State Department wrongfully denied the visa, failed to apply the correct legal standards, and discriminated against Al-Madhloom because he was born in Yemen. They also alleged that the government’s acceptance of visa filing fees created a contractual obligation to adjudicate the application in good faith.
In a 13-page decision, Judge Suddaby granted the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over certain claims and that others failed to state a valid legal basis for relief.
Specifically, the court found that:
- The couple’s breach of contract claim was invalid because paying a filing fee does not create a contractual obligation enforceable in court;
- The claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) failed because the consular officer’s smuggling determination was not subject to judicial review under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability;
- The discrimination claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act did not survive dismissal because it relied on speculative allegations and failed to demonstrate intentional bias based on nationality;
- The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent cause of action.
Despite dismissing the entire complaint, Judge Suddaby denied the motion to dismiss in part on jurisdictional grounds, clarifying that some aspects of the lawsuit were not barred under subject-matter jurisdiction, even though they still failed on other legal grounds.
The lawsuit centered around a decision by the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia, where the couple had submitted Al-Madhloom’s visa application. According to the complaint, the embassy determined he was inadmissible due to allegations that he assisted others in obtaining false documentation—a finding the plaintiffs disputed.
The case reflects a broader legal principle known as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally prevents courts from second-guessing consular decisions on visa matters. Courts have consistently ruled that visa denials based on national security, fraud, or smuggling grounds are not subject to judicial challenge, absent constitutional violations—which the court found lacking in this case.
With the complaint dismissed in full, the plaintiffs may seek to refile or appeal, but for now, the legal effort to overturn the visa denial has come to a halt.