Dear Armande:

       I am sorry to report that we were unsuccessful in our efforts to overturn the judge’s decision. It was always a difficult case and proved to be insurmountable. From the language the court recited, it was obvious that they believed that a great wrong had been done to the plaintiffs. However, they found no legal basis to overturn the decision. Please post this and a description of the decision below. With this decision our work is concluded on behalf of you and all the others who objected to the government’s treatment. It was our pleasure to represent you in this matter. Best regards,  Ira Kurzban

This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in the consolidated cases of Smirnov v. Clinton that affirmed the district court's rulings.  The court summarized its decision by stating:  "This case stems from a regrettable error in the State Department’s conduct of the fiscal year 2012 diversity visa lottery and its subsequent decision to void the results. Plaintiffs here are a group of those selected in that botched lottery. Ultimately, although we understand the plaintiffs’ frustration and heartbreak, there is no legal theory entitling them to enforce the results of a lottery rendered unlawful by the Department’s apparent negligence."  The basis of the court's decision is that "[t]he first lottery was unlawful because it failed the regulation’s requirement that the petitions be 'rank-ordered at random' after the initial numbering is complete. See 22 C.F.R. § 42.33(c)."  The court accepted the Amin declarations' description of why the lottery did not follow the required rank-ordering and concluded that despite Plaintiffs' questioning of Amin's explanation, the State Department "reasonably decided to void the results of the lottery."  With regard to Plaintiffs' equitable estoppel argument, the court concluded that while negligence by the State Department may have taken place, more was needed to prove "affirmative misconduct."  In addition, the court expressed concern that because the second lottery had taken place, "were we to reallocate visa numbers back to the winners of the first lottery, the unfairness to the winners of the second lottery would be at least as grave as that to the first set of winners."

Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
 Ira Kurzban