A federal court has dismissed a case involving Faranak Soleymani, who sought to compel U.S. officials to process her F-1 visa application. The court ruled against Soleymani, stating that her claims did not meet the legal requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act. This ruling impacts Soleymani and others facing similar visa application delays.

Soleymani, a German citizen, studied in the United States from 2022 to 2024 under an F-1 visa. In April 2024, she applied to renew her visa to continue her Ph.D. studies at the University of Oregon. However, after an interview at the U.S. Embassy in Frankfurt, her application was refused, and she was informed that it required further administrative processing. Despite submitting additional documents in August 2024, her application remained in a refused status.

In December 2025, Soleymani filed a lawsuit against Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, and Kenneth Platek, the Acting Director of the National Vetting Center. She claimed that the delay in processing her visa application caused her significant harm, including loss of funding and emotional distress. Soleymani sought relief under the APA and the Mandamus Act, arguing that the defendants had an obligation to adjudicate her application.

The case reached the District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Tanya S. Chutkan presided. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Soleymani failed to state a valid claim. The court agreed with the defendants, stating that Soleymani did not identify a legally required action that the agency failed to perform.

The court noted that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a consular officer must refuse a visa application if the applicant is ineligible. The court pointed out that Soleymani had already received an official refusal of her application, which meant the agency had fulfilled its duty to process her application. The court referenced a previous case, Karimova v. Abate, which had established that a refused application undergoing administrative processing remains officially refused.

The court ruled, "Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clear, non-discretionary duty to act, her mandamus and APA claims must be dismissed."

Judge Chutkan's ruling emphasized that the consular officer had acted within the law by reviewing Soleymani's application, interviewing her, and issuing a refusal. The court also noted that the possibility of reconsideration based on new evidence does not negate the refusal already entered.

This ruling is significant for individuals facing similar visa application delays. It clarifies that once a visa application is formally refused, the agency has met its obligations under the law. The decision may discourage future claims based on perceived delays in administrative processing, as the court found no legal basis for such claims in this case.

The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving visa application delays and the responsibilities of consular officers. It reinforces the idea that once an application is refused, the agency is not required to take further action unless new evidence is presented.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Soleymani will appeal the decision. The court's ruling indicates that she faces significant legal hurdles if she chooses to pursue further action. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.