Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Givehchi v. United States Department of State

District of KansasJohn Wesley BroomesDecided March 19, 2025No. 2:24-cv-02343

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
When an individual is outside of the United States, a consular officer determines whether an individual is ineligible to receive a visa under the law.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
the consular officer issued a denial of the visa application under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) and informed him that the application would undergo additional administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order directing defendants to “cease visa refusal and adjudicate Hassan’s administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
“Different standards apply to a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 18.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Hassan was interviewed at the United States Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on August 28, 2023.
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
Because Plaintiffs did not identify a non-discretionary duty to act on an already refused visa application, Plaintiffs’ APA claim must fail.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Hassan Givehchi (“Hassan”), a citizen of Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs are United States citizens. Nicholas filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on June 6, 2020 for his father, Hassan Givehchi (“Hassan”), a citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-02343
Filed
August 7, 2024
Ended
March 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
224 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.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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.