Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Ghasemi v. Rubio

District of MassachusettsAllison D. BurroughsDecided November 4, 2025No. 1:25-cv-10345

Read the decisionOriginal 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
A consular officer, taking into consideration the visa application and the applicant’s representations during the interview, determines whether to “issue the visa” or “refuse the visa.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
After USCIS approved the I-130 petition on November 15, 2022, [id. ¶ 8], Plaintiff Emami submitted the DS-260 Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration application to the NVC.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Construing Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint liberally, the Court understands it to allege that Defendants have failed to take a nondiscretionary act within a reasonable period of time after Plaintiff Emami’s visa application was refused and placed in administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
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, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 18], is GRANTED without prejudice.
Months pending 14.2 months from the application to the suit; 22.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff Emami had a consular interview at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first two TRAC factors do not weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Moving Emami to the “‘front of the line’ would come at the expense of others who shoulder equally taxing burdens.”
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
concludes that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to reconsider Plaintiff Emami’s visa application once he presents new evidence to overcome the basis for refusal.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Emami, an Iranian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Ghasemi, a U.S. citizen who resides in Weymouth, Massachusetts, filed an I-130 visa petition on behalf of her husband, Plaintiff Emami, an Iranian national, sometime between June 29, 2021, and July 2022.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-10345
Filed
February 10, 2025
Ended
November 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
267 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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and First 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.