Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Nosrati v. Allen

Southern District of TexasDecided September 25, 2025No. 4:24-cv-03107

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Defendants further contend that a consular officer has already adjudicated the application and ‘refused to issue the visa for Mr. Asil.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by a model
Here, the Government argues that Nosrati’s complaint is moot because the consular officer already adjudicated the visa application in question by refusing it pursuant to 8 USC § 1201 (g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In response, Nosrati contends that the Court should order the consular officer to perform a nondiscretionary duty owed to the Plaintiff, contending that Mr. Asil’s application was not adjudicated in a timely manner.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 10) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court will first consider Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 10).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, having considered the motion, ‘submissions, and applicable law in this case, the Court determines that it lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Nosrati’s claim, considering there is no live controversy before the Court.*
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, having considered the motion, ‘submissions, and applicable law in this case, the Court determines that it lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Nosrati’s claim, considering there is no live controversy before the Court.*
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
the Court determines that it lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Nosrati’s claim, considering there is no live controversy before the Court.
Months pending 229.7 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Nosrati contends that her husband, Seyed Farshad Fatahnaei Asil, filed a visa application that has remained pending since 2005, and that Defendants have taken no further steps to adjudicate the visa application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, having considered the motion, ‘submissions, and applicable law in this case, the Court determines that it lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Nosrati’s claim, considering there is no live controversy before the Court.*

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-03107
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
August 20, 2024
Ended
September 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
401 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.