Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Jahani v. Rubio

District of ColumbiaTanya S. ChutkanDecided December 17, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00989

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
Plaintiffs claim that the State Department is unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying final adjudication of their visa applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
All Plaintiffs—except one—had their applications for F or J visas refused and placed into administrative processing following an interview with a consular officer.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After Plaintiffs’ visa applications were refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) and placed into administrative processing, they sued the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs claim that the State Department is unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying final adjudication of their visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to “move for judgment on the pleadings” “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.”
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Relief; and GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.
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
Because the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims on this ground, it need not address Defendant’s alternative argument that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Because the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims on this ground, it need not address Defendant’s alternative argument that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims on this ground, it need not address Defendant’s alternative argument that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars Plaintiffs’ claims.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion as to Count Four of the proposed amended complaint. The court will, however, grant Plaintiffs’ leave to bring Counts Five and Six of the proposed amended complaint, which challenge the No Visa Policy.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
Because Plaintiffs fail to point to any duty requiring the State Department to take further action on already-refused visa applications, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on these claims as a matter of law.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian nationals who applied for visas to study or research in the United States, as well as their derivative beneficiaries.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00989
Filed
April 4, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.