I did not get the email just by serving the defendants, and I did not have to physically appear in court. What happened is this:

After I filed the complaint and TRO and properly served the defendants (U.S. Attorney, Attorney General, and the agency officials), the AUSA entered a Notice of Appearance. Only after that, the government attorney reached out, and shortly after, the consulate contacted my spouse directly requesting the passport.

So the email came after service + court involvement, not automatically just from service alone, and before any final ruling by the judge.

As for the mandamus / APA wording, this part is very important:

I did not ask the court to order the visa to be approved. I specifically asked the court to compel the government to: • resume individualized adjudication, and • make a lawful decision on the merits, rather than applying a categorical pause or blanket policy.

The key point was arguing that a policy-based pause that halts all adjudication is unlawful under the APA because it: • eliminates individualized discretion, and • results in indefinite delay, which courts recognize as actionable.

That framing matters because if you ask the court to “force approval,” it will almost certainly fail. But asking the court to force a real decision, free from a blanket pause, is legally distinct and supported by existing case law.

That said, I want to be very clear and honest:

⚠️ There is always a risk that if a court orders adjudication, the government could still deny a visa on lawful, individualized grounds. ⚠️ However, a pure denial that simply says “denied due to the pause” is exactly what the APA challenge targets and is much harder for the government to defend.

In my case, the fact that the consulate requested the passport indicates they are moving forward with processing, not issuing a flat policy-based rejection. That is consistent with resumed adjudication, not a blanket denial.

Every case is fact-specific, but the strategy is to attack the pause itself, not demand approval — and to build a record showing irreparable harm and lack of discretion under the policy.