Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

FARAHANI v. BLINKEN

Middle District of North CarolinaTHOMAS D. SCHROEDERDecided January 31, 2025No. 1:23-cv-00922

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Defendant Marco Rubio is the United States Secretary of State, who oversees the department responsible for adjudicating visa applications.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model her family’s visa applications were placed in administrative processing, and thus refused pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Dr. Farahani seeks an order requiring Defendants to process her family’s visa applications within fifteen calendar days of the court’s order or as soon as reasonably practicable, in addition to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) is GRANTED and the court’s May 30, 2024 memorandum opinion and order (Doc. 11) is VACATED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Dr. Farahani’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This case returns to the court on the motion of Defendants for reconsideration of its May 30, 2024 memorandum opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Dr. Farahani’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Therefore, Defendants are entitled to dismissal, and their motion will be granted.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and Dr. Farahani’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending	Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model In March 2023, Dr. Farahani, Dr. Taherahmadi, and Sepehr were interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia in connection with their visa application.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model So, the claims as to Sepehr are moot.

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
FARAHANI v. BLINKEN	May 30, 2024	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Denied in the applicant's favor
FARAHANI v. BLINKENThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	January 31, 2025	THOMAS D. SCHROEDER	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-00922
Filed: October 26, 2023
Ended: January 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 463 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: judgment 2025-01-31 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 Fourth 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
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312

Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.