Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

SORIANO v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Western District of PennsylvaniaNora Barry FischerDecided March 28, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00222

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
Plaintiff claims that the U.S. Embassy did not provide a reason for its actions.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff avers that Barreca applied for a B1/B2 visa at the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina on January 30, 2025.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide legal reasons for the denial and/or to reconsider the denial because of harm to the business.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
In every case, the Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint for Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 0.6 months from the application to the suit; 1.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff avers that Barreca applied for a B1/B2 visa at the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina on January 30, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
The Court also believes that leave to amend must be denied because even if Plaintiff had standing to bring his claim, it would be barred by the doctrine of consular non-reviewability.
Nationality Argentina Read by a model
Argentinian citizen Alejandro Barreca

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00222
Filed
February 15, 2025
Ended
March 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
41 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Third 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.