This case arose from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. immigration policy. The State Department paused processing of Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) applications in March 2020 and suspended entry via diversity visas under Presidential Proclamation 10014 until February 2021. The Appellants were selectees in the FY 2021 DV Program, which ran from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Due to the processing delays, many selectees had not received their visas by the end of the fiscal year. The Appellants sued, seeking an injunction to either expedite processing or preserve their eligibility for the remainder of the litigation. Some Appellants eventually received visas and became Legal Permanent Residents, while others, the 'No-Visa Appellants,' did not. The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that the request to extend eligibility beyond the fiscal year was moot and that the Appellants lacked standing to pursue other claims for damages or declarations.
Circuit Judge Childs, writing for the panel, affirmed the district court's dismissal based on mootness and standing. First, regarding the No-Visa Appellants' request to preserve visa eligibility, the court applied the principle established in Goodluck v. Biden that 'at the end of the fiscal year, those applicants without visas are out of luck.' Because the statutory authority for the FY 2021 visas expired on September 30, 2021, any claim for relief extending processing past that date was moot. The court noted that mootness is a threshold jurisdictional issue limiting federal courts to actual, ongoing controversies. Second, the court addressed standing for the remaining claims, which included a declaration of bad faith, nominal damages, and an injunction to adjudicate pending applications. The court held that past injuries alone are insufficient to establish standing for declaratory relief, as the Appellants were not suffering an ongoing injury or facing an immediate threat. Regarding nominal damages, the court found that the Administrative Procedure Act only waives sovereign immunity for relief other than money damages, and the United States has not waived immunity for nominal damages in this context. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying supplemental briefing, noting that the briefing would not have changed the outcome given the dispositive nature of the Goodluck precedent.
The decision confirms that Diversity Immigrant Visa eligibility strictly terminates at the end of the designated fiscal year. Applicants who have not received a visa by September 30 cannot compel the State Department to process their applications in subsequent years. The ruling also clarifies that the APA does not provide a pathway for nominal damages against the government in this context. While the court noted that unadjudicated DS-260 forms from FY 2021 should not impede applicants from filing for visas in future years, the specific claims regarding the FY 2021 program are closed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download