Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Shahrgan v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaCarl J. NicholsDecided May 5, 2025No. 1:24-cv-03462

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
In February 2025, however, the government moved to dismiss Shahrgan’s complaint as moot, on the grounds that a consular officer had re-adjudicated Shahrgan’s visa application and denied it pursuant to Sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 214(b) of the INA.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal) Read by a model
In any event, a visa applicant whose application is refused and then placed into administrative processing—as Shahrgan’s was, see Compl. ¶ 14—has still “received the ‘refused’ decision that the law expressly authorizes as one of the allowed actions on a visa application.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff Shahryar Shahrgan initiated this lawsuit to compel the final adjudication of his visa application, which he alleged had remained in an indeterminate “administrative processing” status since February 2024.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the government moved to dismiss Shahrgan’s complaint as moot
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
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
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
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03462
Filed
December 11, 2024
Ended
May 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
145 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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 D.C. 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.