P.K. v. Blinken

Status: Currently on hold as another case is litigated that involved the same issue of whether a court could order that diversity visas be issued after the fiscal year in which they were awarded.

Case Overview

At the outset of his presidency, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order which barred individuals from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. He described this action as a Muslim Ban. NILC and co-counsel ultimately filed multiple lawsuits challenging different aspects of the Ban, including the legality of the Ban itself and, in this case, the application of the Ban to the diversity visa lottery.

In this case, NILC and co-counsel challenged the Department of State’s refusal to process visa applications for winners of the U.S. Diversity Visa Program lottery who hailed from the six Muslim-majority countries covered by President Trump’s Muslim ban.

The U.S. Diversity Visa Program provides an opportunity to a limited number of immigrants from countries with historically low immigration to come to the United States. Randomly selected winners receive a visa, provided that they satisfy the eligibility requirements and qualify under the government’s general rules for visas. At the time of this suit, only 50,000 diversity visas were awarded each year with an average of 16 million people applying each year.

Our Plaintiffs, lottery winners from Iran and Yemen, had their visas withheld by the Trump administration’s Department of State on the basis of the Muslim Ban. Diversity Visas expire at the end of the federal fiscal year in which applicants are selected. When the 2017 fiscal year expired, the district court dismissed our case as moot, despite the fact that our Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to obtain a visa and enter the country.

NILC and co-counsel appealed this decision and an Appeals court reversed it, with the Court of Appeals holding that relief may still be available for denied applicants. We returned to the District Court and subsequently agreed to stay (or pause) the case, due to the upcoming change in administrations.

Once in office, President Biden did rescind the Muslim Ban, but did not provide a remedy for people denied diversity visas based on the Ban. In response, we sought to reactivate the case, however, the court decided to keep the case on hold as another case was being litigated that involved the same issue of whether a court could order that diversity visas be issued after the fiscal year in which they were awarded.