Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Arslan v. United States Department of State

Western District of TexasXavier RodriguezDecided October 15, 2025No. 5:25-cv-00062

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
In short, the consular office must reconsider visa refusals on certain grounds when an applicant submits additional evidence within one year of the refusal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
applied for an immigrant visa. ECF No. 1. On the same day, a consular officer determined that he was ineligible for the visa and refused the application under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to complete administrative processing within sixty days, adjudicate the visa application, issue the immigrant visa, and explain the cause and nature of the delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On this date, the Court considered Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7)
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
All other claims for relief under the APA and Mandamus Act remain pending.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
All other claims for relief under the APA and Mandamus Act remain pending.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
All other claims for relief under the APA and Mandamus Act remain pending.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s due process claim is DISMISSED for failure state a claim
Months pending 14.6 months from the application to the suit; 23.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 30, 2023, Mr. Arslan attended a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Amman and applied for an immigrant visa.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Mootness argument rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Combined with his plausible allegation that the refusal was not a final decision, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability is inapplicable to his claim that the decision has been unreasonably delayed.
Nationality Syria Read by a model
a Syrian citizen residing in Aleppo, Syria.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Fateh Arslan (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, seeks mandamus relief concerning a petition for an immigrant visa he filed in July 2019 on behalf of his father, M. Raid Arslan (“Mr. Arslan”), a Syrian citizen residing in Aleppo, Syria.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-00062
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
January 16, 2025
Ended
December 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
337 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-12-19; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.