Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

Nikpanah v. United States Department of State

Northern District of AlabamaNicholas a. DanellaDecided February 3, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00404

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
On October 26, 2023, the State Department conducted visa interviews for Nikpanah’s parents.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
“issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate long- delayed immediate relative visa applications”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff requests that the court “compel[] Defendants to promptly complete all administrative processing within sixty days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On August 24, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On August 24, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to 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 reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As a result, on the due process cause of action, Plaintiff cannot state a plausible claim for relief.
Months pending 5.2 months from the application to the suit; 15.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 26, 2023, the State Department conducted visa interviews for Nikpanah’s parents.
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
In sum, Plaintiff has not identified any basis for the court to find that the State Department has a discrete, nondiscretionary duty to take any action beyond the action that it did take: refusing the visas for Plaintiff’s parents after their consular interviews.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Nikpanah’s parents, Seyedmostafa Nikpanah and Monir Mostaghimi, are Iranian citizens who currently reside in Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
In April 2021, Nikpanah filed immediate relative visa petitions for her parents with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00404
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 32)
Filed
April 1, 2024
Ended
February 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
308 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.