Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Geranmayeh v. Callahan

Eastern District of VirginiaAnthony J TrengaDecided June 10, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02283

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
After the interview, the respective consular officers notified the Plaintiffs that their case was refused under Section 221(g) and would be placed in administrative processing, during which time, Plaintiffs were asked to submit additional information through a questionnaire.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
the Plaintiffs subsequently applied for an H-1B visa, completed all necessary application steps, and attended an interview.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
ask the Court to compel the Defendants’ to adjudicate their H-1B visa applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Motion is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
the Motion is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion, [Doc. No. 10], be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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
Nor have Plaintiffs identified any other applicable regulation or statute that imposes upon the Defendants a non-discretionary duty to further consider or re-adjudicate their visa applications within a specific period of time.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs1 are three Iranian nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02283
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 24)
Filed
December 16, 2024
Ended
June 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
176 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.