Plaintiff is a Russian national proceeding pro se. He alleged that while he was prosecuting pro se another matter in the state court of New Jersey, he left the United States to return home to Russia. When he tried a few days later to obtain a B1/B2 Visa to return to the United States, the United States Consul General denied his application. Plaintiff re-applied two months later and was denied again. Because he never hired counsel to appear on his behalf in New Jersey, the action was dismissed.

Plaintiff sued five employees from the United States Department of State for money damages arising out of the denial of his application for a Visa to enter the United States. The Complaint alleged conspiracy to commit civil rights violations, state law causes of action, and violations under an international treaty. Plaintiff sought $100 million in compensatory damages, $100 million in exemplary damages, and $500,000 in attorneys' fees. The instant Motion to Dismiss followed and asserted that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the power conferred by the Constitution and statutes. A decision to deny a Visa is not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States and deny judicial intervention. Furthermore, immigration laws preclude judicial review of consular Visa decisions. This rule is broadly applied, even where it is alleged that the consular officer did not follow regulations, that regulations are invalid, or that the decision was based on factual or legal error.

Plaintiff argued that he was not seeking review of his Visa denial; rather, he argued that his claims are based on his denial of access to the New Jersey state court. Judge Sullivan explained that the Plaintiff cannot circumvent the doctrine of consular nonreviewability by claiming he is not seeking a review of a consular decision. His case rested on a theory that the alleged conspiracy resulted in the denial of his Visa, which proximately caused his alleged damages. There can be no judicial determination that the alleged conspiracy that produced the Visa decision constitutes a legal injury that proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. Because judicial review of visa decisions is precluded, Plaintiff's case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.