Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Allan v. United States Secretary of State

Middle District of FloridaDecided February 17, 2026No. 6:25-cv-00775

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
After the petition is approved, “the consular office shall either issue or refuse the visa.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
to perform their duty or duties to adjudicate their immigration visa applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Specifically, the Government argues that, while it is required to adjudicate Rebhi Allan and Amal Ahmad’s visa requests, it has already denied the request pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1201 (g).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In the Motion, the Government argues that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because the Government has already done so, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed.
Months pending 22.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
In 2025, their applications for visas were refused.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Accordingly, because the Government is not legally required to provide any additional process, this Court lacks jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act.
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Plaintiffs Rebhi Allan and Amal Ahmad are citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, United States citizens over the age of twenty-one years old may file a visa petition for their parents to become lawful residents in the United States.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Allan v. United States Secretary of StateThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 17, 2026 Dismissed
Allan v. United States Secretary of State April 13, 2026 Paul G. Byron Not recorded

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:25-cv-00775
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 14)
Filed
May 2, 2025
Ended
February 17, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
291 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.