The U.S. Department of Justice is urging a federal court in Massachusetts to dismiss a wide-ranging lawsuit filed by Rev. Torli H. Krua and six other Liberian nationals who accuse the federal government of systemic racial discrimination in immigration policy, misuse of U.S. foreign aid to Liberia, and historical injustices stemming from Liberia's founding as a nation for formerly enslaved African Americans.
In a 26-page memorandum submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, obtained by the Daily Observer, government attorneys argue that the plaintiffs' case -- Krua et al. v. Mayorkas et al. -- should be thrown out for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The motion to dismiss, filed on March 24, 2025, outlines in detail why the court cannot legally entertain the claims brought by the plaintiffs, who are representing themselves without legal counsel.
Visas, Racism, and Reparations
The lawsuit was originally filed on January 17, 2025, by Rev. Krua, a Boston-based activist and pastor, along with Asia Flumo and Wachen Love Flumo (also based in Boston), and Peter D. Brown, Michael Mendoabor, Mariam Meiplay, and Kodjo Bah, all residing in Liberia. Their complaint alleges they were denied visas to enter the United States and excluded from the benefits of the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (LRIFA), which offers a pathway to permanent residency for certain Liberians residing in the U.S. since 2014.
Beyond immigration, the plaintiffs contend that U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Liberia has enabled corruption, systemic inequality, and "racial colonization" by empowering U.S.-backed elites in Liberian politics. They demand the immediate suspension of all U.S. financial aid to the West African nation until democratic reforms and anti-corruption measures are implemented.
Rev. Krua and his co-plaintiffs seek sweeping relief, including: a halt to all visa requirements for Liberians; green cards for Liberian refugees already in the U.S.; the creation of a reparative justice framework to address alleged historical and systemic wrongs; financial compensation for Krua's alleged loss of income; and the declassification of a purportedly secret U.S. government cable from 1990 that they claim ordered discriminatory actions against Liberians fleeing civil war.
U.S. Government's Response
The U.S. government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawna Yen, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments on procedural and legal grounds. In its memorandum, the government asserts that the court has no authority to consider the case because the federal government has not waived its "sovereign immunity"--the legal doctrine that shields it from lawsuits unless Congress expressly allows them.
Moreover, the government argues that immigration decisions such as visa approvals and denials are discretionary actions by consular officers and are not subject to judicial review. The memo cites the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Department of State v. Muñoz, which reaffirmed the principle of "consular non-reviewability," meaning courts cannot second-guess visa decisions made by U.S. consulates abroad.
"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize judicial review of a consular officer's denial of a visa; thus, as a rule, the federal courts cannot review those decisions," the memorandum states.
As for the plaintiffs' exclusion from the LRIFA program, the government argues that eligibility decisions under the law are also discretionary and shielded from court review. The memorandum points to previous federal rulings that found no court jurisdiction over denied immigration benefits unless there is a specific statutory waiver, which the plaintiffs have not identified.
Claims Beyond Immigration
The plaintiffs' more unconventional demands--such as an order to suspend all U.S. taxpayer funding to Liberia--were also roundly rejected. The government argues that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to challenge U.S. foreign policy decisions because they cannot demonstrate a direct injury caused by aid to Liberia.
"Injury in fact, causation, and redressability are all absent," the government writes, citing the foundational Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case. "Generalized grievances about government policy are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction."
Additionally, the lawsuit relies in part on international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. But the government says these instruments are not "self-executing" treaties, meaning they do not create enforceable rights in U.S. courts without additional legislation--which has not been enacted in these cases.
The government's motion also dismisses Krua's personal claim for financial damages. He alleges that he was fired from his job at Wang Computers in retaliation for his political activism, but the government argues that it cannot be held responsible for employment decisions made by a private company and that the claim lacks any supporting facts.
Further, the plaintiffs call for the declassification of a "1990 cable from Washington" which they claim directed discriminatory treatment against Liberians during the country's civil war. The government contends this claim is too vague and speculative to proceed, as the plaintiffs provide no concrete details about the existence or content of such a document, let alone legal grounds for its disclosure.
Legal Hurdles
Even if the court were to consider the plaintiffs' case on its merits, the government argues, it should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The plaintiffs' constitutional claims under the Equal Protection Clause fail, the government says, because they do not present specific facts showing that they were treated differently than others similarly situated based on race or national origin. Likewise, the government asserts that claims under civil rights statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (which addresses racial discrimination in contracts) and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which covers access to public accommodations) are inapplicable to the facts alleged.
In a footnote, the memorandum highlights that at least three plaintiffs--Krua and the Flumos--are already living in the U.S., rendering moot their request for relief related to visa denial or entry into the country.
Procedural Defects Add to Legal Troubles
Beyond the substantive arguments, the government also points to procedural errors. According to federal rules, plaintiffs must properly serve the United States by delivering a copy of the complaint to both the U.S. Attorney for the district and the Attorney General in Washington, D.C. As of the filing date, the plaintiffs had not completed service to the Attorney General, a defect that alone could justify dismissal.
If not corrected within 90 days of filing, the court may dismiss the case for failure to serve under Rule 12(b)(5). The plaintiffs, who are not attorneys and are representing themselves, have the burden to prove proper service--a burden they have yet to meet.
What's Next?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The court will now consider whether to grant the government's motion. If it does, the case will be dismissed--either with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile it, or without prejudice, allowing them to try again if they correct procedural errors and can assert a legally viable claim.
For Rev. Krua and his fellow plaintiffs, the case represents more than an immigration dispute; it is a symbolic and legal challenge to decades of U.S.-Liberian relations and a call for accountability. But for now, the legal question is whether such claims belong in a federal courtroom at all.
A ruling on the motion could come within weeks, depending on whether the court seeks additional hearings or written responses from the plaintiffs.
Background: Liberia and the U.S.
Liberia has a unique historical connection to the United States. Founded in the early 19th century by formerly enslaved African Americans and free Black people repatriated under the auspices of the American Colonization Society, Liberia has maintained deep--though often fraught--ties to its former benefactor. Many Liberians have resettled in the United States during decades of civil conflict and political instability.
Rev. Krua, a long-time advocate for Liberian immigrants and a vocal critic of both Liberian and U.S. policy, has campaigned for greater equity in immigration policy, arguing that Liberians have faced systemic neglect and discrimination despite these deep ties.
Whether the courts will agree that such claims rise to a justiciable controversy remains to be seen. But the case--complex, emotional, and far-reaching--underscores the intersection of immigration, foreign policy, and historical grievance in the American legal system.
