Mandamus decisions / Western District of Wisconsin
Garjani, Mehraveh v. Flores, Pete R.
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 State Department has absolute discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a visa application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa)
Read by a model
the non-immigrant visa applications of her parents |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiffs now seek a temporary restraining order compelling defendants to adjudicate the visa applications before June 9, 2025, when the recent presidential proclamation barring the issuance of visas to Iranian citizens takes effect. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. 14, is DENIED. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. 14, is DENIED. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiffs now seek a temporary restraining order compelling defendants to adjudicate the visa applications before June 9, 2025 |
| Disposition |
Denied in the government's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart.
Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. 14, is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Because an order to adjudicate the visa application would not give plaintiffs the relief they seek, the court will deny the motion for preliminary relief. |
| The delay claim |
Relief denied
Read by a model
Because an order to adjudicate the visa application would not give plaintiffs the relief they seek, the court will deny the motion for preliminary relief. |
| Months pending |
29 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
it’s a reasonable inference that 29 months is unusually long. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Iran
Read by a model
Iranian citizens Nasrin Maleki Dizaji and Alireza Garjani |
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.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Garjani, Mehraveh v. Flores, Pete R.This decision | June 6, 2025 | James D. Peterson | Denied in the government's favor |
| Garjani, Mehraveh v. Flores, Pete R.The case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | June 30, 2025 | James D. Peterson | Transferred to another court |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:24-cv-00539
- Filed
- August 5, 2024
- Ended
- September 15, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 771 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- order 2026-09-15 for the defendants, ground not stated
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 Seventh 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.
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Pak v. Biden, 91 F.4th 896
Seventh Circuit, January 31, 2024. Consular nonreviewability bars a systemic challenge to how terrorism-related inadmissibility exemptions are considered, a matter the statute commits to the Secretaries' sole unreviewable discretion, and a statutory citation with a facial link to the record satisfies Mandel.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289
Seventh Circuit, December 7, 2017. Consular nonreviewability is a merits rule rather than a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction, and it bars indirect attacks on a visa refusal through the underlying inadmissibility finding.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 11 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Yafai v. Pompeo, 912 F.3d 1018
Seventh Circuit, January 4, 2019. A visa refusal citing a statutory inadmissibility ground supported by facts in the record is facially legitimate and bona fide, and bad faith must be affirmatively shown before a court looks further.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492
Seventh Circuit, August 6, 2002. INS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate diversity-visa applications and § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of a failure to act, but no relief is available once the fiscal year ends.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Questioned by Akash Shahi v. United States Department of S, 33 F.4th 927 (2022).
-
Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272
Seventh Circuit, December 5, 2017. USCIS must process U-visa petitions within a reasonable time, but neither mandamus nor the APA offers relief to an applicant who shows nothing setting him apart from those ahead of him in the oldest-first queue.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Shahi v. United States Department of State, 33 F.4th 927
Seventh Circuit, May 6, 2022. Courts cannot order a diversity visa issued after the fiscal year ends whatever relief is requested, because the statute ends eligibility, and the Mandamus Act supplies a remedy rather than jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 10 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.