Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Motahari v. Blinken

Southern District of New YorkLorna G. SchofieldDecided June 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-07608

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
Defendants state that the consular officer refused Mahmoud’s visa under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) to conduct additional security screening and that the embassy received Mahmoud’s answers to “Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants (Form DS-5535)” on or before May 10, 2023.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
“DS-260 Online Immigrant Alien Registration Applications”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs now seek a writ of mandamus and a finding of unreasonable delay under the APA to compel Defendants to complete administrative processing and make a decision on Mahmoud’s application for an immigrant visa.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ mandamus petition and complaint (the “Petition”) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ mandamus petition and complaint (the “Petition”) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted based on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Months pending 16.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
“DS-260 Online Immigrant Alien Registration Applications” to the NVC on February 22, 2023
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“It would undoubtedly ‘interfere with the visa-issuing process’ to issue an order moving plaintiff to the front of the queue.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Accordingly, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Farzaneh Motahari is a U.S. citizen and the daughter of Plaintiff Mahmoud Motahari, a citizen of Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Farzaneh Motahari is a U.S. citizen and the daughter of Plaintiff Mahmoud Motahari, a citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-07608
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 32)
Filed
August 28, 2023
Ended
June 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
304 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-06-26 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.

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 Second 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.