## Facts

- Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born scholar of Islam, was offered a tenured position at the University of Notre Dame requiring an H-1B visa.
- The government revoked his H-1B visa in July 2004 based on a terrorism-related ground, later withdrawing that justification as erroneous.
- Ramadan resigned the Notre Dame position due to continued delays affecting his ability to enter the United States.
- In September 2005, Ramadan submitted a B-1/B-2 visa application to attend U.S. conferences and events hosted by U.S. academic and literary organizations.
- The government did not adjudicate the B-visa application, effectively preventing Ramadan from entering the United States.
- The American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors, and PEN American Center alleged that the non-adjudication interfered with their First Amendment interest in hearing and engaging with Ramadan’s ideas.
- Plaintiffs sought mandamus and injunctive relief compelling adjudication of the visa application.

## Issues

1. Whether federal officials have a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate a properly submitted nonimmigrant visa application, such that mandamus may compel action.
2. Whether indefinite non-adjudication that effectively excludes a foreign speaker impermissibly burdens U.S. citizens’ and organizations’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.
3. Whether consular nonreviewability bars a court from ordering the government to decide a visa application where no issuance or refusal has occurred.

## Decision

- The court granted mandamus relief in part, ordering the government within 90 days to either issue a visa or provide a legally sufficient reason for refusing it.
- The court declined to order that a visa be issued, holding that the grant-or-denial decision itself remains discretionary.
- The court recognized that the U.S. plaintiffs had cognizable First Amendment interests implicated by the government’s prolonged, unexplained failure to decide.
- The court held that consular nonreviewability did not preclude relief because the government had not made a visa decision; the order compelled a decision, not a particular outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Executive discretion over visa issuance concerns how to resolve an application, not whether to resolve it.
- State Department regulations require consular processing of nonimmigrant visas to be prompt and require an officer to either issue or refuse a completed application (22 C.F.R. §§ 41.106, 41.121), supporting a clear duty to adjudicate.
- Mandamus may compel performance of a ministerial duty to adjudicate, even where the ultimate substantive decision is discretionary.
- Consular nonreviewability generally limits judicial review of an actual visa refusal, but it does not bar an order requiring the government to make a decision where the government has not issued or refused a visa.
- U.S. citizens and organizations have First Amendment interests in receiving information and ideas from foreign speakers; government action that effectively excludes a speaker must be accompanied by at least a facially valid legal basis through formal adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court held that, although the government retains broad discretion to grant or deny a nonimmigrant visa, it cannot avoid accountability by indefinitely withholding a decision; it ordered adjudication within 90 days, recognizing that prolonged non-adjudication can burden U.S. plaintiffs’ First Amendment interests.


Am. Acad. of Religion v. Chertoff, 463 F. Supp. 2d 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)