Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

SORBI v. RUBIO et al

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided August 24, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02353

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
In May 2026, after the motion to dismiss Mrs. Sorbi’s complaint was fully briefed,4 the U.S. Embassy issued a Refusal Worksheet to Mr. Kalantarikhandani.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In early 2023, Plaintiff Parisa Sorbi filed an IR-1 immigrant visa petition on behalf of her Iranian husband, Amirbahman Kalantarikhandani, as the pair sought to “begin [their] life together in the United States.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
When she filed this lawsuit in July 2025, Mrs. Sorbi sought to compel a final adjudication of her husband’s visa application, which had been placed in administrative processing following a refusal under INA § 221(g).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 21, 31);
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 21, 31);
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 21, 31); DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF Nos. 30, 32– 37);
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This Court joins that growing consensus in concluding that Mrs. Sorbi’s unreasonable-delay claims are now moot, warranting dismissal of her complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This Court joins that growing consensus in concluding that Mrs. Sorbi’s unreasonable-delay claims are now moot, warranting dismissal of her complaint.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
This Court joins that growing consensus in concluding that Mrs. Sorbi’s unreasonable-delay claims are now moot, warranting dismissal of her complaint.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For this reason, Mrs. Sorbi’s claims concerning the consular officer’s refusal would not survive a motion to dismiss and her requests to amend the complaint are therefore futile.
Months pending 14 months from the application to the suit; 24 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The refusal notice Mr. Kalantarikhandani received in May 2026 expressly informed him that a consular officer had deemed him ineligible for a visa under § 212(f), that this decision could not be appealed, and that an NIE would not be granted in his case.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
Although the Court construes Mrs. Sorbi’s recent filings as a motion for leave to amend her complaint to challenge the § 212(f) refusal, those proposed claims are futile because they are barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Parisa Sorbi is an American citizen who petitioned for an Immediate Relative (“IR-1”) visa on behalf of her Iranian husband, Amirbahman Kalantarikhandani.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10998 Read by a model
a consular officer found [him] ineligible for an immigrant visa under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10998.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Parisa Sorbi is an American citizen who petitioned for an Immediate Relative (“IR-1”) visa on behalf of her Iranian husband, Amirbahman Kalantarikhandani.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02353
Filed
July 13, 2025
Ended
August 24, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
407 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 D.C. 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.