Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

WAZIR v. SANDERS

District of ColumbiaRichard J. LeonDecided July 9, 2026No. 1:25-cv-04278

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
Over the next several months, Usman inquired about the status of his application, and the U.S. Consulate General advised him that administrative processing remains ongoing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
With those standards in mind, I tum to the statutory and regulatory framework governing immigrant visas to assess whether such a clear, nondiscretionary duty exists in this case.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order compelling the defendants to process Usman's visa application "as soon as reasonably possible."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I will GRANT the Government's Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court need not address dismissal under Rule 12(b)(l) and will resolve the motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On February 9, 2026, the Government moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I will GRANT the Government's Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I will GRANT the Government's Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because plaintiff has not identified any duty requiring further action on a visa application following a refusal under INA § 221 (g), the complaint fails to state a claim for relief under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the suit; 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 9, 2024, Usman attended his consular interview at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal, Canada.
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
Because plaintiff has not identified any duty requiring further action on a visa application following a refusal under INA § 221 (g), the complaint fails to state a claim for relief under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Usman, a Pakistani citizen, currently resides in Canada with Wazir.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Under the INA, U.S. citizens may petition for immigrant visas for their spouses as immediate relatives by filing Form 1-130 with USCIS.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-04278
Filed
December 9, 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.

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.