Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

Jahani v. Rubio

Western District of MissouriStephen R. BoughDecided March 27, 2025

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
Consular officers abroad adjudicated Plaintiffs’ visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
All Plaintiffs, beside Jahani and Soltaninejad who have approved F-1 visas, state that they fulfilled all administrative requirements to obtain their F-1, F-2, J-1, or J-2 category nonimmigrant visas (“NIV”).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
take all appropriate action to fulfill their mandatory, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ F-1, F-2, J-1 and J-2 vias applications, and issue decisions on their applications within a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #17) 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; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Writ of Mandamus and Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and 21.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Writ of Mandamus and Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and 21.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, Count III must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
The Court adopts the reasoning of Al-Gharawy and Ahmed and holds that the nonreviewability doctrine does not bar judicial review when a visa remains in administrative processing.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nineteen Iranian national students, post doctorate researchers, and their derivative beneficiaries who have been accepted into programs at various American universities and research facilities.

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 Eighth 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.