Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

MYERS v. RUBIO

Western District of PennsylvaniaWilliam S. StickmanDecided April 25, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01592

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
While the DOS has discretion with respect to whether to grant or deny a visa application, it has a nondiscretionary duty to decide the application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On February 17, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application (“DS-160”).
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs are effectively suing to compel a consular officer to make another final decision on their already refused visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion (ECF No. 9) and supporting brief (ECF No. 10) seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion (ECF No. 9) and supporting brief (ECF No. 10) seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
Months pending 9.1 months from the application to the suit; 14.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 17, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted an Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application (“DS-160”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Doing so would only encourage more litigation and permit those with the resources to bring a lawsuit to cut the line ahead of applicants with visa applications that have been pending for an even longer period of time.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
the Court would dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint because the visa refusal is not subject to review under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Danaei is an Iranian national and the primary applicant for the nonimmigrant visa application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01592
Filed
November 20, 2024
Ended
April 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
156 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 Third 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.