Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Mehrpooya v. Allen

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AlikhanDecided September 4, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02340

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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
This court continues to adhere to the view that consular officials have a non-discretionary duty to fully adjudicate a visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Later that month, USCIS approved the H-1B petition and Mr. Mehrpooya submitted his DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Rather, he argues only that Defendants must “adjudicate [his] visa application within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Mehrpooya’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Mehrpooya’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and allow Mr. Mehrpooya to proceed with his complaint.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and allow Mr. Mehrpooya to proceed with his complaint.
Months pending 17.1 months from the application to the suit; 29.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2023, Texas Tech University initiated Mr. Mehrpooya’s H-1B visa application process. ECF No. 1 ¶ 15. Later that month, USCIS approved the H-1B petition and Mr. Mehrpooya submitted his DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Application.
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
Accordingly, the case is not barred by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Mehdi Mehrpooya, a citizen of Iran,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02340
Filed
August 12, 2024
Ended
January 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
515 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.