Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Rafieikhajegini v. United States Department of State

District of ArizonaDominic W LanzaDecided May 21, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01972

Read the decision Original 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 Additionally, Defendants’ position is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the State 19 Department sent a Form DS-5535 to Plaintiff’s Mother in the immediate aftermath of her 20 consular interview, which she completed and returned three days later.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model [Plaintiff’s Mother] appeared for her consular interview at the U.S. Embassy 12 in Abu Dhabi and applied for an immigrant visa on November 14, 2022.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Plaintiff seeks “a writ of 28 mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate a long-delayed immediate relative visa 1 application.”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) 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’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice.
Months pending	10.2 months from the application to the suit; 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model and applied for an immigrant visa on November 14, 2022.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetableneutral 3. Human health and welfareneutral 4. Competing prioritiesneutral 5. Interests prejudicedneutral 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model As a result, the first TRAC 11 factor strongly favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model remaining TRAC factors are essentially neutral
Threshold rulings	Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model The Court disagrees that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability is applicable 24 here.
Nationality	Iran Read by a model who is a citizen of Iran.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model a long-delayed immediate relative visa 1 application.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:23-cv-01972
Filed: September 19, 2023
Ended: May 21, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 245 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

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
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
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
Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094

Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2018. The APA provides no avenue for review of a consular visa refusal beyond Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide inquiry, and consular nonreviewability is not a jurisdictional bar.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 8 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Sanchez Gonzalez v. United States Department of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Ninth Circuit, April 30, 2026. After Muñoz, a citizen spouse's own First Amendment interest triggered Mandel review, which a facially legitimate and bona fide reason satisfied absent a showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-18; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 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.