DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1. COMES NOW Plaintiff FRANK SERAFINO SALVATORE MARRA, with this complaint against the Defendants, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

2. Plaintiff filed for E-2 with receipt number AD946976 and it was filed with the U.S Consulate General, Toronto, on January 28, 2022, and the Consulate was expected to adjudicate and hold interview within 180 days of receiving the application as per 8 U.S.C. §1571(b).

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, FRANK SERAFINO SALVATORE MARRA, is an individual and a resident of Canada.
4. Defendant U.S. CONSULATE GENERAL, TORONTO is a foreign consulate located in Toronto, Canada. The consulate provides services such as visa applications and American citizen services.
5. Defendant SUSAN R. CRYSTAL is the Consul General at the U.S. Consulate General, Toronto. She exercises authority over the U.S. Consulate General, Toronto’s activities related to visa applications. She is sued in her official capacity.
6. Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE is a department of the U.S. Federal Government. The Department of State is involved in the processing of E-2 visa applications. The Department of State operates within this District.

JURISDICITON AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of there being a federal question relating to 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) et seq.
8. Venue is proper in this county under 8 USC 1391(b)(3), & (e) as the United States Department of State is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action.

FACTS

9. On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff submitted his E-2 Non-Immigrant classification. His interview was scheduled for August 10, 2022, which he attended.
10. Plaintiff attended the Visa Interview Appointment at the Toronto U.S. Consulate on August 10th, 2022 and received the 221G Notice requesting additional information at your interview appointment.
11. Plaintiff responded to the U.S. Consulate’s 221G Notice on August 17, 2022.
12. Plaintiff’s former attorney inquired about the E-2 visa case status with the U.S. Consulate on November 1^st, 2022 and August 9^th, 2023.
13. The Consulate responded both times stating that Plaintiff’s case remains pending Administrative Processing.

14. According to 8 U.S.C. §1571(b), the Consulate must adjudicate and provide approval or denial of Plaintiff’s application within 180 days after the interview. However, at this time it has been around an year without the Consulate concluding Plaintiff’s case.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

Violation of 8 U.S.C. §1571(b)

15. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herei
16. According to 8 U.S.C. §1571(b), the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.
17. Plaintiff submitted his E-2 application for Non-Immigrant classification on January 28 2022. His interview was scheduled for August 10, 2022. Plaintiff attended the interview.
18. Plaintiff then received the 221G Notice requesting additional information at your interview appointment. He responded to the Notice on August 17, 2022.
19. On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s former attorney inquired about the E-2 visa case status.
20. Again, on August 9, 2023, the attorney again inquired about the case status.
21. The Consulate responded both times stating that Plaintiff’s case remains pending Administrative Processing.

22. It is now about one year and Plaintiff has not received a decision from the Consulate.
23. It follows; the Defendants have violated 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) by failing to adjudicate Plaintiff’s case within the required statutory timeline.

COUNT 2

MANDAMUS

28 U.S.C. § 1361

24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully stated herei
25. The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, grants authority to courts to compel defendants to perform a duty owed to plaintiff.
26. The defendants have a statutory obligation to process Plaintiff’s E-2 Visa application not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.
27. One year has passed since Plaintiff filed the E-2 Visa application.
28. Defendants’ duty to perform their statutory obligation violates 8 U.S.C. §1571(b).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff hereby prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants and the following relief be issued:

1. Compel the Defendants to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) and adjudicate Plaintiff’s E-2 application within 60 days after filing of this Judgment;
2. Plaintiff’s costs of suit herein; and

• Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on the ____________day of _______________, 2023, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint were served by placing a copy in the United States Postal Service, with postage prepaid, addressed upon the following:

SERVICE ON:

[ENTER ADDRESS]

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )