Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

Savoj v. Blinken

Northern District of AlabamaAnnemarie Carney AxonDecided August 26, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01049

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
They allege that the U.S. Department of State has unreasonably delayed adjudicating their visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In December 2022, Mr. Savoj and Ms. Feiz submitted visa applications to visit the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In Count One, Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to complete the administrative processing of the visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court WILL GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
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 the complaint on jurisdictional grounds under Rule 12(b)(1) and merits grounds under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The court WILL GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court WILL GRANT the motion and WILL DISMISS Count One for lack of jurisdiction and Count Two in part for lack of standing and in part for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court WILL GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court WILL DISMISS the part of Count Two seeking to compel an adjudication of the visa applications WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The court WILL DISMISS Count One and the part of Count Two challenging the use of the DS-5535 form WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 20 months from the application to the suit; 32.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In December 2022, Mr. Savoj and Ms. Feiz submitted visa applications to visit the United States.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Because nothing in the INA or the regulations require a consular officer to conduct “administrative processing,” this court lacks the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to complete the “administrative processing” that they were not required to begin.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mr. Savoj and Ms. Feiz are Iranian nationals who reside in France.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01049
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 32)
Filed
August 1, 2024
Ended
August 26, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
390 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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 Eleventh 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.