Federal Judge Refuses To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Rubio

A federal magistrate judge has rejected the Biden State Department’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by three foreign nationals who claim their visa applications have been stalled unlawfully by Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s office.

The plaintiffs — a Kazakh metallurgist, a Russian project manager, and a Russian makeup artist — had all applied for EB-1A visas, a category reserved for individuals with “extraordinary abilities.” But their petitions have languished in administrative limbo for more than 16 months under § 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows consular officers to put cases on hold pending “additional information,” the Tampa Free Press reported.

The case, Lyazat Tolymbekova, et al. v. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, et al., has now been allowed to proceed — a sharp rebuke to the Biden administration’s arguments that the courts had no authority to intervene.

One plaintiff, Lyazat Tolymbekova, has been separated from her U.S. citizen daughter throughout the ordeal, missing her college graduation and being unable to assist during a serious medical crisis. The other two plaintiffs told the court that the uncertainty has frozen their family plans and professional careers.

The Biden legal team argued that the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” — which typically shields visa denials from judicial review — meant the courts lacked jurisdiction. But Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui rejected that claim, stressing that a § 221(g) hold is not a “final” decision, since the State Department itself tells applicants cases will be re-adjudicated when processing is completed. Nonreviewability, Faruqui said, applies only to actual final denials.

He also dismissed the administration’s claim of “sovereign immunity,” ruling that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) clearly waives such immunity in cases seeking injunctive relief rather than monetary damages.

The court went further, making clear that the State Department has a “clear, nondiscretionary duty” to either issue or refuse a visa once an application is properly filed — a duty it has failed to fulfill. Citing the Accardi doctrine, Faruqui reminded the administration that federal agencies are bound by their own regulations, which explicitly require consular officers to make a decision on every application.

While Faruqui did not yet rule on whether the 16-month delay itself was “unreasonable,” his decision ensures the case will move forward — and leaves open the possibility that the court could ultimately order the Biden administration to issue a final decision.

The controversy over Rubio’s State Department comes as the Secretary continues to play a central role in President Donald Trump’s foreign policy team during his second term. In June, following the successful U.S. airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Rubio delivered a fiery defense of the operation during a tense exchange with CBS host Margaret Brennan.

Brennan pressed Rubio on whether the U.S. had specific intelligence proving that Iran’s Supreme Leader had ordered “weaponization” of uranium. Rubio fired back, dismissing the question as irrelevant:

“That’s irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media all the time. That’s an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon,” Rubio said.

Brennan insisted such intelligence was the “key point.” Rubio cut her off, saying he understood the matter “better” than she did, pointing to Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium — a threshold that serves no civilian purpose.

“Why would you bury things in a mountain, 300 feet under the ground? Why would they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons, because it can quickly make it 90,” he said.

Rubio continued:

“They have all the elements. Why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBM so they can one day put a warhead on it.”

The case against the State Department now returns to the district court for further proceedings — keeping pressure on the Biden bureaucracy and raising questions about whether foreign nationals with legitimate claims are being left in legal limbo because of politicized decision-making.