Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Mohammad Khorami v. United States Department of State

Eastern District of VirginiaMichael S NachmanoffDecided April 24, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02082

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS approved that petition on November 29, 2023, and the State Department scheduled a visa interview for Paknezhad, which occurred on January 17, 2024.
Form or filing	221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model Second, the foreign fiancé(e) submits additional forms—including a Form DS-160 Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application—and brings certain documents to the interview at the U.S. consulate in his or her home country.
What the suit asked for	Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model Plaintiff Mohammad Khorami seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the adjudication of his fiancé’s visa application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model it is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment5 (ECF 12) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, contending that his APA claim should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and his due process claim should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model and it is further ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model this Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, this Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s APA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model This Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable due process claim.
Months pending	10.1 months from the application to the suit; 15.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model USCIS approved that petition on November 29, 2023, and the State Department scheduled a visa interview for Paknezhad, which occurred on January 17, 2024.
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 Defendants’ non-discretionary duty pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 41.102(a) was fulfilled when the consular officer refused the visa application pursuant to INA § 221(g).
Nationality	Iran Read by a model Plaintiff, Mohammad Khorami, a United States citizen, is engaged to Azadeh Paknezhad, a citizen and current resident of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-02082
Filed: November 20, 2024
Ended: April 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 155 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record: idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Sesay v. United States, 984 F.3d 312

Fourth Circuit, January 5, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars review of a relative's visa refusal; under Din and Trump v. Hawaii a valid statutory citation satisfies Mandel, and the court will not look behind it absent a particularized showing of bad faith.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.