Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Salahi Firouzabadi v. Rubio

Northern District of GeorgiaMark H. CohenDecided February 20, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00993

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
Based on the allegations of the Complaint which this Court assumes are tme, Defendants performed this duty when the consular officer refused Nabavi's visa application pursuant to section 221(g) of the INA.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On July 6, 2022, Nabavi submitted his Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa Electronic Application and accompanying documentation.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiffs are seeking to compel Defendants "to issue a decision on the Immigrant Visa Application submitted by Plaintiff Mr. Mohammadmahdi Nabavi that has been pending in the U.S. Consulate in Ankara, Turkey ("the Consulate") since July 6, 2022" Id, ^ 1.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss poc. 7] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss poc. 7] is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss poc. 7] is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order mandating government action and Plaintiffs' claims under the APA and Mandamus Act fail as a matter of law.
Months pending 31.7 months from the application to the suit; 43.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 6, 2022, Nabavi submitted his Form DS-260, Immigrant Visa Electronic Application and accompanying documentation.
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 § 221(g) refusal has been issued Plaintiffs have not identified any discrete action consular officers must take to satisfy their obligations under the INA, or any other pertinent statute or regulation.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
citizen of Iran.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
This case concerns an application for an immediate relative family-sponsored visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00993
Filed
February 25, 2025
Ended
February 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
360 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 Eleventh 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.