Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Ahromi v. Blinken

District of ArizonaDeborah M FineDecided July 12, 2024No. 2:23-cv-02054

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
The undisputed material facts in this matter include 18 that on October 31, 2023, the United States Consulate in Dubai sent Plaintiff Ahromi “a 19 letter notifying him that his visa application remained refused under INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. 20 §1201(g)” (Doc. 26-2 at 2, ¶7; Doc. 26-2 at 5).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
This letter is regarding your H1B visa application submitted at the U.S. 25 Consulate General in Dubai, UAE on October 3, 2022.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek relief on the grounds that consular officer has a discrete and nondiscretionary duty to finally adjudicate the visa application within a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 3 || claims in this action (Doc. 26) and dismissing this matter without leave to amend and with 4|| prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
if Defendant files a 26 motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 that includes any declaration, affidavit, or 27 other evidence outside the Complaint, then Court will consider such motion converted to a 28 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26)
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court concludes that the October 2023 letter constituted the required final agency 26 action regarding the visa application, which here was visa refusal, thus mooting Plaintiffs’ 27 claims and barring Court action due to the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court concludes that the October 2023 letter constituted the required final agency 26 action regarding the visa application, which here was visa refusal, thus mooting Plaintiffs’ 27 claims and barring Court action due to the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court concludes that the October 2023 letter constituted the required final agency 26 action regarding the visa application, which here was visa refusal, thus mooting Plaintiffs’ 27 claims
Months pending 11.9 months from the application to the suit; 12.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
that on October 31, 2023, the United States Consulate in Dubai sent Plaintiff Ahromi “a 19 letter notifying him that his visa application remained refused under INA § 221(g), 8 U.S.C. 20 §1201(g)”
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Held moot; Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The Court concludes that the October 2023 letter constituted the required final agency 26 action regarding the visa application, which here was visa refusal, thus mooting Plaintiffs’ 27 claims and barring Court action due to the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-02054
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 31)
Filed
September 29, 2023
Ended
July 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
287 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2024-07-12 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.