Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

FARAHANI v. BLINKEN

Middle District of North CarolinaTHOMAS D. SCHROEDERDecided May 30, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00922

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 case concerns an allegation of unreasonable delay in the adjudication of the visa applications of Plaintiff’s minor child and husband by the United States Department of State.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In March 2023, Dr. Farahani, Dr. Taherahmadi, and Sepehr were interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia in connection with their visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Dr. Farahani seeks an order mandating that Defendants process her family’s visa applications within fifteen calendar days of the court’s order or as soon as reasonably practicable, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On January 19, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is the motion to dismiss by Defendants Deputy Chief of Mission Chip Laitinen and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
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 ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Dr. Farahani has not plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay will therefore be denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Dr. Farahani has not plausibly alleged an unreasonable delay will therefore be denied.
Months pending 14.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2023, Dr. Farahani, Dr. Taherahmadi, and Sepehr were interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia in connection with their visa application.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
the court agrees with her that the first two factors require further fact development here.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
the court cannot accept Defendants’ factual contentions regarding the U.S. Embassy’s priorities and resource limitations, where it is plausible, at this stage and on this record, that administrative processing does not operate as a “first-in, first-out” queue.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Accordingly, consular nonreviewability does not alone preclude Dr. Farahani’s claims at this stage.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Dr. Taherahmadi, an Iranian national

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
FARAHANI v. BLINKENThis decision May 30, 2024 THOMAS D. SCHROEDER Denied in the applicant's favor
FARAHANI v. BLINKENThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted January 31, 2025 THOMAS D. SCHROEDER Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00922
Filed
October 26, 2023
Ended
January 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
463 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2025-01-31 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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 Fourth 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.