Adjudicator flowchart released by State Department in litigation discovery.


You are not alone and we are here to help. Many Iranian national visa applicants refused under the travel ban are supposed to be automatically considered for waivers of the ban. However, most applicants experience unreasonable delays in the adjudication of their waivers. Part of the reason for the delays is that the hands of consular officers have been tied, as the Visa Office is unlawfully requiring its concurrence for all approvals. 

One solution that we recommend is a writ of mandamus, a fancy term for a lawsuit with the goal of compelling the government to do what it already has a duty to do. After filing a writ of mandamus, a federal court can order the State Department to adjudicate a waiver under the travel ban. A writ of mandamus does not guarantee the grant of a waiver from the travel ban.

Petitions for writ of mandamus have proved to be successful in many cases, by compelling the State Department to make its decisions on waivers, or face discovery, prolonged litigation, and the scrutiny of the courts and the media. Further, the petitions can be brought on behalf of individual families, or a joinder action with multiple families who are similarly-situated.

For further information on a writ of mandamus and how to initiate the process, drop us a line at or 714-661-3446 (Same # for Telegram). 


Do you have experience with mandamus lawsuits for Iranian nationals?

Yes. The first case we filed on behalf of Iranian American families and couples was Darchini v. Pompeo, the second was Najafi v. Pompeo, and we are preparing to file a third case representing Iranian American families and couples that will be filed on October 15, 2019. 

Will petitioning for a writ of mandamus jeopardize our visa application?

This is a common misconception. In our view, when a case is in litigation it is the one time we can know for sure the State Department will act in good faith and fairly adjudicate an application, because its own Department of Justice attorney will be advising them to do so. Further, the court, us as Plaintiff attorneys, and possibly, the media, will be watching as well.  In the extremely unlikely event the State Dept denied a waiver or refused to issue a visa as a result of litigation, that conduct would be what is called "bad faith" and is unlawful. Under a case called Bivens, as victims of this bad faith, you could be entitled to money damages. Further, the government could not raise the "consular nonreviewability" defense because bad faith is an exception to that principal. Simply, it would be a scandal for the State Department to retaliate against visa applicant litigants, and thus is extremely unlikely to happen.

What are the advantages to joinder actions, with multiple plaintiffs?

First, joinder actions make litigation more affordable for more plaintiffs. Secondly, in a joinder action, all plaintiffs benefit in legal arguments around the aggregate hardship experienced by the entire group, aggregate hardship that has a lot better chance at getting a preliminary injunction, and substantive discovery.

Do participants in mandamus lawsuits have to go to court?

No. We, as your attorneys, will attend court on your behalf. However, if you would like to come, you are more than welcome to do so.

If we participate in a mandamus action, can you guarantee the outcome?

No. Attorneys cannot guarantee the outcome of judicial proceedings. We can tell you what has happened in similar litigation in the past.  In Mosleh v Pompeo, we represented 7 Yemeni families who all received waivers of the travel ban within 45 days of the day we filed the case.


For the cases we've filed since then, Darchini v Pompeo, Jamal v Pompeo, and Najafi v Pompeo, the results have been a little different in each. Please inquire directly with Curtis for the latest update.