Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Muhammad Said v. United States Department of State

District of ColoradoNina Y. WangDecided September 28, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01821

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Since then, the Department of State has “refused to issue a final decision on these cases.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
First Amended Complaint in the Nature of Mandamus Arising from Defendants’ Refusal to Adjudicate Plaintiff’s Immigrant Visa Applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
“promptly complete all administrative processing within sixty days,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Doc. 10] is DENIED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for three reasons:
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (“Motion” or “Motion to Dismiss”), filed by Defendants on August 25, 2025.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Doc. 10] is DENIED
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Doc. 10] is DENIED
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Doc. 10] is DENIED
Months pending 28.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The interviews were conducted in May of 2024 by the United States Department of State.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
the Court has not been presented with evidence or allegations regarding how many other Iraqi visa applicants are in similar circumstances, spending years awaiting the reconsideration of their visa application following the submission of requested additional information.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to either itself issue his parents’ visas or order the Department of State to do so, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability plainly bars that.
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
whose parents are citizens and residents of Iraq.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
his immediate relative visa cases

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01821
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 27)
Filed
June 11, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.