A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a case brought by Ania Khodabakhshian against Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, regarding a lengthy delay in her visa application process. The court ruled that the delay in her nonimmigrant visa application was not unreasonable under the law. This decision affects Khodabakhshian, a dual citizen of Armenia and Iran, who has been waiting for nearly two years to receive a visa to work as a postdoctoral scholar in the United States.
Khodabakhshian applied for an H-1B visa in March 2024, but her application was refused during a consular interview in April 2024. She was informed that her application required further administrative processing, which has left her in limbo since then. Growing impatient with the delay, she filed a lawsuit in June 2025, claiming that the delay violated her rights under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act. The case is known as Civil Action No. 2025-1981.
The dispute centers around whether the delay in processing Khodabakhshian's visa application constitutes an unreasonable delay under the law. Initially, the defendants sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were not based on a specific duty that had not been fulfilled. However, the court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The defendants later sought judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law.
In a ruling issued on August 7, 2026, Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh agreed with the defendants. He stated that the court had to evaluate the delay using six factors established by the D.C. Circuit Court in a previous case. The judge emphasized that there is no strict timeline for visa applications, and delays must be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case.
The court ruled, "On balance, after applying the TRAC factors to Khodabakhshian’s well-pled allegations, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for unreasonable delay."
Judge Sharbaugh noted that the delay in Khodabakhshian's case, approximately 28 months from her application to the court's ruling, is within the range that courts have typically found acceptable. He explained that delays of three to five years are often not considered unreasonable, while delays of five years or more may be deemed excessive. Therefore, the court found that the first and most important factor weighed in favor of the defendants.
Furthermore, the judge pointed out that expediting Khodabakhshian's application could negatively impact other applicants waiting for their visas. The court emphasized that prioritizing one application over others could create unfairness in the processing of visa applications. Although Khodabakhshian argued that her situation warranted special consideration, the court maintained that the broader implications of such a decision could not be overlooked.
The ruling also considered the potential harm Khodabakhshian faced due to the delay. She claimed that the prolonged uncertainty was causing her professional and emotional distress, as she was missing out on valuable opportunities in her field. However, the court concluded that while her concerns were valid, they did not outweigh the factors favoring the defendants.
The court's ruling highlights the complexity of immigration cases and the challenges faced by individuals navigating the visa process. It illustrates the difficulties in proving unreasonable delays, especially when the courts have established a framework that allows for significant waiting periods in certain situations.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving visa delays. It reinforces the notion that delays in the immigration process may not always be actionable in court, particularly when they fall within a range deemed acceptable by the courts. Khodabakhshian's case serves as a reminder of the challenges many face when dealing with immigration issues.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if Khodabakhshian plans to appeal the decision. The court's ruling may also influence other pending cases related to visa delays, as it establishes a legal standard for what constitutes an unreasonable wait.