Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

MOINI et al v. Antony J. Blinken et al.,

Southern District of FloridaDavid S. LeibowitzDecided August 21, 2025No. 0:24-cv-62160

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
A consular officer determines whether to refuse or grant a visa application based on an inperson interview with the applicant and application materials presented at the interview.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by a model
visa applications were denied under § 221(g) of the INA and placed in administrative processing
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs here—noncitizens whose visa applications were denied under § 221(g) of the INA and placed in administrative processing following their consular interviews [ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 25–35]— seek to compel the adjudication of their visa applications
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court diverges from the R&R only to the extent that the R&R is styled as a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“the Motion”) [ECF No. 12]
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both the Mandamus Act and the APA.
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
While a consular officer does have “a discrete, nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate visa applications,” an officer who refuses a visa application and places it in administrative processing satisfies that duty

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
MOINI et al v. Antony J. Blinken et al., July 15, 2025 Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch Magistrate judge's recommendation
MOINI et al v. Antony J. Blinken et al.,This decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 21, 2025 David S. Leibowitz Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:24-cv-62160
Filed
November 14, 2024
Ended
August 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
280 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.