Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Javanbakhshdastana v. U.S. Department of State

Northern District of GeorgiaSteven D. GrimbergDecided September 28, 2026No. 1:25-cv-05458

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
Similarly here, because their complaint shows that Defendants have already refused M.J.’s visa application, Plaintiffs cannot identify any further nondiscretionary act that the State Department has not taken.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Despite numerous status update requests, M.J.’s visa application remains in administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to complete administrative processing and issue a final adjudication of the visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint [ECF 6]. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure and Mandamus Act claims, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 6] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending 31.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 8, 2024, M.J. attended her visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey and shortly thereafter completed her visa application.
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
Similarly here, because their complaint shows that Defendants have already refused M.J.’s visa application, Plaintiffs cannot identify any further nondiscretionary act that the State Department has not taken.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
M.J. is a citizen of Iran
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs are a married couple.2 M.J. is a citizen of Iran, and J.S. is a citizen of the United States.3 J.S. filed a visa petition with USCIS on behalf of M.J.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-05458
Filed
September 24, 2025
Ended
September 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
369 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-09-28 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.