Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

JAHANI v. ARMSTRONG et al

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided September 30, 2026

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
Jahani likely does, however, have standing as to the U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, who oversaw the Consul General, and perhaps also as to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, as “a court order directed at [those Defendants] could redress Plaintiff’s injuries.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff Nazanin Jahani is an Iranian-born citizen of Norway whose application for an immigrant visa was refused by a consular officer pursuant to Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and then placed into “administrative processing.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
unreasonably delaying the adjudication of her visa application and seeks an order compelling such an adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Jahani has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to her visa application.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government argues that “there is no further statutory or regulatory command to act, precluding mandamus relief under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Jahani has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to her visa application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Jahani has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to her visa application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Jahani has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to her visa application.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
It will instead dismiss this suit because, as discussed above, Jahani has not demonstrated that the government has a duty to take any further action with respect to her visa application.
Nationality Norway Read by a model
Plaintiff Nazanin Jahani is an Iranian-born citizen of Norway

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.