Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Hallaji v. Platek

Eastern District of VirginiaAnthony J TrengaDecided September 8, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00677

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
But Plaintiffs’ are not seeking a review of the State Department’s refusal of their visa applications, but rather seek to compel the State Department to act on their visa applications based on the additional information provided after that refusal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
adjudicate their F-1 and F-2 nonimmigrant student visa applications.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
But Plaintiffs’ are not seeking a review of the State Department’s refusal of their visa applications, but rather seek to compel the State Department to act on their visa applications based on the additional information provided after that refusal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). [Doc. No. 8. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERED that the Motion, [Doc. No. 8], be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERED that the Motion, [Doc. No. 8], be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERED that the Motion, [Doc. No. 8], be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s 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
after a visa is denied under Section 221(g) and placed in administrative processing, there is no other non-discretionary duty that requires the Defendants to complete the administrative processing or re-adjudicate the already-refused visas.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Iranian graduate students, or the spouses thereof

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00677
Filed
April 21, 2025
Ended
September 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
141 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.

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.