Raduga USA Corp., Nikolai Romanovskiy, and Vladlena Yakovleva vs. US Department of State, et. al

United States District Court, Southern District of California

Case number 04CV996

2005

The Honorable Barry T. Moscowitz presided over the case in which Raduga USA Corp., a computer and electronics dealer in San Diego, CA, sued the State Department, the United States Embassy in Moscow, and two top officials in the Department of Homeland Security for a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a directive from a high court instructing a government office to take a certain action. In this case, the certain action was to render final judgment on the visa applications from Nikolai Romanovskiy, the president and sole shareholder for Raduga USA, and his dependent, Vladlena Yakovleva, two Russian citizens.

On April 8, 2001, Mr. Romanovskiy and his dependent filed for visas at the US Embassy in Moscow, pursuant to Immigration Petitions filed on their behalf by Mr. Romanovskiy’s company. They submitted the proper paperwork, took an interview with a consular official, and never got a judgment. Almost two years after this first interview, another was scheduled for the pair. They refiled, reinterviewed, and still heard nothing. They went through the process one more time after this, and still no word whether their applications were accepted or denied. After four years, the plaintiffs decided to take action.

The process of convincing the court to compel a government agency to take action is very complicated it involves proving that the plaintiff has standing, a proper venue, and the right to ask for mandamus. Standing, in itself, entails “an [actual] invasion of legally protected interest,” a clear path of injury from the defendant to the plaintiff, and an understanding that a mandamus would help the situation. By showing all three, Raduga USA was granted proper standing.

Because most of the government’s case for arguing venue rested on the fact that Raduga did not have standing, their argument failed. Raduga USA Corporation was incorporated in the United States, and therefore any legal action it takes shall be carried out in US courts.

Finally, asking for a writ of mandamus has three parts: (1) that the claim is clear and certain, (2)that the duty in question is objective and easily arranged, and (3) that there is no other possible solution. The plaintiff is asking for a simple yes or no on their application, so there is no confusion on the claim. By giving this yes or no, the official duty involves no form of discretion, and after four years, the consular office has shown that the only thing that would compel them to give this judgment is a writ of mandamus. The plaintiffs made their case.

The Court found on behalf of the plaintiff, and ordered the US Embassy in Moscow to issue a judgment on the visa applications within sixty days of the ruling. The motion was denied, however, for all offices other than that which would directly involve the visa application.