When an immigration case remains stalled for months or years, a federal lawsuit may provide a way to challenge prolonged government inaction.

Our firm has been involved in federal litigation concerning agency delay, administrative processing, and judicial review of immigration decisions. Through litigation in federal courts, Attorney Payam Yazdani has helped advance legal arguments that have contributed to the developing jurisprudence and continue to influence how courts evaluate prolonged government inaction in immigration cases.

Attorney Payam Yazdani served as counsel in several federal cases challenging prolonged visa and waiver processing, including Sarlak v. Pompeo, 2020 WL 3082018 (D.D.C. 2020), Joorabi v. Pompeo, 464 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2020), and Mirbaha v. Pompeo, 513 F. Supp. 3d 179 (D.D.C. 2021). These cases addressed issues that continue to arise in immigration mandamus litigation today: When does an agency’s delay become unreasonable? Does a visa refusal followed by continued administrative processing constitute a final decision? When does the doctrine of consular nonreviewability prevent federal-court review? And how should courts evaluate agency delay under the factors established in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC (“TRAC”)?

The significance of these cases extends beyond the individual clients involved. Federal courts have continued to cite Sarlak, Joorabi, and Mirbaha in subsequent agency-delay and visa-processing cases.

Sarlak, in particular, has become a frequently cited authority in TRAC litigation. Federal courts in multiple jurisdictions have relied on the decision when evaluating the length and reasonableness of immigration-processing delays, the absence of congressionally mandated processing deadlines, and the practical consequences of ordering an agency to move one applicant ahead of others.

Joorabi has likewise been cited by later courts and litigants addressing the relationship between administrative processing, final agency action, and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Its discussion of whether a visa decision remains nonfinal while administrative processing continues has been relied upon in subsequent federal litigation years after the decision was issued.

Mirbaha further developed this line of cases. The court rejected threshold arguments that consular nonreviewability and mootness deprived it of jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ pending waiver-delay claim, before ultimately evaluating the claim under the TRAC framework. Notably, Mirbaha itself relied on Sarlak, demonstrating how this developing line of cases began building upon earlier decisions litigated by our firm.

These decisions continue to appear in federal opinions years later. Their ongoing citation reflects the role these cases have played in the developing jurisprudence surrounding immigration agency delay.

For our clients, mandamus litigation is not an academic exercise. The objective is to address a case that has become unreasonably stalled while understanding the limits and risks of federal-court intervention. Our experience litigating these issues—and seeing arguments from our own cases later considered by courts around the country—provides a perspective that comes from direct involvement in this area of federal immigration litigation.



Every delayed immigration case is different, and filing a federal lawsuit does not guarantee that an application or visa will be approved. But when government inaction becomes prolonged, mandamus or other federal-court relief may provide a viable path forward.