7 Days Before Deadline, Plaintiffs Seek Action on Diversity Visa Cases
Plaintiffs in three consolidated lawsuits asked a federal judge Wednesday to hold the Trump administration in civil contempt, alleging that the State Department had failed to comply with an August order requiring it to resume processing certain diversity visa applications before the end of the fiscal year.
The motion, filed Sept. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks Judge Richard J. Leon to require the government to complete the reconsideration and adjudication of named plaintiffs’ diversity visa applications by Sept. 30 and issue visas to applicants found eligible. The plaintiffs also asked the court to order the government to reserve visa numbers for the named plaintiffs beyond the deadline while the contempt proceedings are resolved.
The filing involves consolidated cases brought by diversity visa applicants, including Ivanov v. Trump, Chersak v. Department of State and Saito v. Department of State.
The plaintiffs contend that the State Department has failed to comply with Leon’s Aug. 25 order, which barred the government from applying the challenged diversity visa and immigrant visa pauses to the named plaintiffs, required the restoration of applicants’ positions in the processing queue and directed the government to take reasonable steps to reconsider their cases before Sept. 30.
“The government has thumbed their nose at this Court’s order,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.
The motion alleges that the department has continued to impede diversity visa processing as the end of the fiscal year approaches. It cites government status reports showing that approximately 752 diversity visa applications were refused and about 84 were approved for issuance after Sept. 8. The plaintiffs said the department scheduled about 86 interviews for roughly 1,900 named plaintiffs while scheduling approximately 1,846 reinterviews for applicants who had already been interviewed.
The plaintiffs also cited a separate government report in related litigation in California showing that the department approved one diversity visa for issuance while refusing approximately 169 applications during a 17-day period after an injunction in that case.
The filing argues that the government has introduced a new public-charge processing system that effectively functions as another delay or pause. According to the motion, the department required consular posts to complete public-charge-related training before resuming immigrant visa processing and established additional managerial review procedures even after an officer determines that an applicant is eligible.
The plaintiffs argue that those requirements conflict with Leon’s instruction to “resume ordinary adjudication” and reconsider their cases without the invalidated pauses.
The motion also says the State Department reported refusing 17 named plaintiffs in the Ivanov case and one named plaintiff in the Saito case under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. According to the plaintiffs, the department said it was not reviewing those denials because it considered them outside the scope of Leon’s Aug. 25 order.
The plaintiffs are seeking an expedited ruling because diversity visa eligibility generally expires at the end of the federal fiscal year, on Sept. 30. They asked Leon to require the government to show cause by Sept. 28 why it should not be held in civil contempt and to file status reports each business day through Sept. 30 identifying the actions taken on each named plaintiff’s case.
The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary fines. Instead, they argue that reserving visa numbers would constitute a coercive and remedial contempt sanction intended to preserve the court’s ability to provide meaningful relief if the government’s alleged noncompliance causes the applications to expire.
The request also raises an unresolved question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The motion acknowledges that the appeals court has previously ruled that courts generally cannot order the government to continue issuing diversity visas after the Sept. 30 deadline. The plaintiffs, however, point to language in that decision that they say leaves open whether a court may impose contempt sanctions when the government has acted in bad faith or caused undue delay in complying with a timely injunction.