Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Mostafavi v. Rubio

Southern District of New YorkNelson Stephen RomanDecided August 19, 2026No. 7:25-cv-04382

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
At the conclusion of the interview, a consular officer issued a notice under § 221(g) of the INA informing her that additional administrative processing was required.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Behbahani thereafter applied for an immigrant visa by submitting a Form DS -260, Online Immigrant Visa Application, on January 25, 2023.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that the Government has failed to complete administrative processing or otherwise render a final adjudication of Behbahani’s immigrant visa application following the issuance of a notice under § 221(g)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the “ Motion” ) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
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 to Plaintiffs bringing a future action should Behbahani’s
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Government’s Motion is GRANTED, however, with respect to Plaintiffs’ APA claims because the alleged delay is not unreasonable, as well as Plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Government’s Motion is GRANTED, however, with respect to Plaintiffs’ APA claims because the alleged delay is not unreasonable, as well as Plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claim.
Months pending 27.9 months from the application to the suit; 42.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Behbahani thereafter applied for an immigrant visa by submitting a Form DS -260, Online Immigrant Visa Application, on January 25, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors therefore weigh in the Government’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the relief sought would nonetheless require the Government to prioritize Behbahani’s immigrant visa application at the expense of competing applications seeking similar adjudication.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The Court therefore declines to extend the doctrine of consular nonreviewability to bar Plaintiffs’ claims seeking to compel further adjudication of Behbahani’s immigrant visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Afsaneh Behbahani, Mostafavi’s mother, is an Iranian citizen residing in Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
An IR-5 immigrant visa would permit Behbahani, as the parent of a United States citizen, to immigrate to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 7:25-cv-04382
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 27)
Filed
May 23, 2025
Ended
August 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
454 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2026-08-20 dismisses on the TRAC factors

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 Second 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.