Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Farhadinia v. US Department of State et al

Eastern District of TexasK. Nicole MitchellDecided May 5, 2026

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 Ms. Peterson states that the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan refused Mr. Farhadinia’s visa application on January 29, 2026, under INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10998.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model administrative processing of her father’s I-130 visa petition.” ECF 6 at 4. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to “make a final determination on Mahmood Farhadinia’s visa application within 30 days”
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model seeking [a] writ of mandamus compelling defendants to take action on the long-pending administrative processing of her father’s I-130 visa petition.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model The request to order Defendants to take action on the visa application is now moot.
Months pending	Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model The request to order Defendants to take action on the visa application is now moot.
212(f) proclamation	Proclamation 10998 Read by a model the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan refused Mr. Farhadinia’s visa application on January 29, 2026, under INA § 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 10998.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model Plaintiff is a United States citizen “seeking [a] writ of mandamus compelling defendants to take action on the long-pending administrative processing of her father’s I-130 visa petition.”

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 Fifth 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.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212

Fifth Circuit, June 1, 1987. Decisions of consular officers on visa applications are not reviewable by federal courts, and a denial under a ground that carries no waiver is subject to no review at all.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 6 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.