Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Arkansas

Dorobati v. Gaudiosi

Eastern District of ArkansasLee P. RudofskyDecided January 12, 2026No. 4:24-cv-00743

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
It appears that, in general and specifically in the instant case, the State Department assumes administrative processing will end with what the Department sees as a second adjudication of the visa application at issue.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After the interview, the consular officer refused the visa application and referred it for administrative processing.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Relying on these statutes, Mr. Dorobati seeks to compel action on his wife’s application, claiming that the Deputy Chief “retain[s] a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to review and adjudicate his wife’s visa application through conclusion and within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Second, the Court has determined that this is a facial attack on jurisdiction, meaning that the Court applies the same standard as it would for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Deputy Chief took the Court up on that invitation.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Mr. Dorobati’s current Mandamus Act and APA claims are dismissed. Given the prior Order in this case, that leaves no live claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Dorobati’s current Mandamus Act and APA claims are dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Mr. Dorobati’s current Mandamus Act and APA claims are dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
But, on these two issues, the Court agrees with the former presiding judge’s decision and the reasoning provided in his initial Order.
Months pending 11 months from the application to the suit; 26.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In October of 2023, Mr. Dorobati’s wife was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates.
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
The consular officer interviewed Mr. Dorobati’s wife and then refused her visa application. There is no clear duty for the consular officer to do more.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
He petitioned for his wife, an Iranian national, to receive a visa.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Ali Dorobati is a U.S. citizen.1 He petitioned for his wife, an Iranian national, to receive a visa.2

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00743
Filed
September 3, 2024
Ended
January 12, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
496 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 Eighth 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.