Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ariani v. Antony J. Blinken

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided December 17, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00349

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
Because Plaintiffs identify no clear requirement that the State Department must act further once issuing a 221(g) refusal, they cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The applicant must then submit a Form DS-260, which is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate for an interview with a consular officer.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
They sued the Secretary of State and another State Department official, seeking to compel further action on their refused applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to “move for judgment on the pleadings” “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.”
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike; GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Amend their Complaint.
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
Because Plaintiffs identify no clear requirement that the State Department must act further once issuing a 221(g) refusal, they cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs identify no clear requirement that the State Department must act further once issuing a 221(g) refusal, they cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs identify no clear requirement that the State Department must act further once issuing a 221(g) refusal, they cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Although Defendants amply demonstrated the futility of Plaintiffs’ direct challenges to Presidential Proclamation 10949, Defendants do not explain why Plaintiffs’ challenges to the No Visa Policy and the State Department’s implementation of the National Interest Exception would be futile.
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
Because Plaintiffs identify no clear requirement that the State Department must act further once issuing a 221(g) refusal, they cannot state a claim under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 58 Iranian nationals whose visa applications were refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and placed into administrative processing.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10949 Read by a model
Plaintiffs have provided evidence that at least three Plaintiffs—Nima Ghiasidoost, Ghazal Delnavaz, and Mohammed Erfan Kazemi—have received § 212(f) refusals explicitly pursuant to the Proclamation and were also denied a National Interest Exception.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00349
Filed
February 7, 2025
Ended
January 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
354 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-01-27

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.