Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

VAHIDA v. NAMDAR

District of ColumbiaRandolph D. MossDecided October 15, 2026No. 1:26-cv-01674

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
The consular officer’s regulatory duty to issue or refuse Plaintiff’s application was therefore discharged when the officer refused it under Section 221(g).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff applied for the visa by submitting a Form DS-160 to the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, Finland.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks relief for Defendants’ alleged failure “to complete the administrative processing that they themselves acknowledge remains ongoing,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, is hereby GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and her APA claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, is hereby GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will DISMISS Plaintiff’s Mandamus Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and her APA claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 18.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff applied for the visa by submitting a Form DS-160 to the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, Finland.
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
But even if Karimova is non-precedential, the Court finds its reasoning persuasive and concludes that § 555(b) does not impose a clear legal duty on consular officers to re-adjudicate a visa application that has been refused and placed in administrative processing.
Nationality Finland Read by a model
Mitra Vahida, a dual citizen of Finland and Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-01674
Filed
May 15, 2026
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.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.