Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

BEHZAD MEHR v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaMatthew J. SharbaughDecided August 13, 2026No. 1:24-cv-02197

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
At the close of that interview, the consular officer advised Plaintiffs that their application would be placed into administrative processing, directed them to complete another online questionnaire (Form DS- 5535), and issued a Section 221(g) refusal.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs submitted a Form DS-260 on March 31, 2023, and NVC confirmed that Plaintiffs were documentarily qualified on April 27, 2023.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After the interview, Plaintiffs were issued a “refusal” under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and were told that their application required further “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Invoking Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the Secretary presses three arguments for dismissal:
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Applying these principles here, and accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court agrees with the Secretary that the complaint fails to state a claim of unreasonable delay under either the APA or the Mandamus Act.
Months pending 15.5 months from the application to the suit; 40.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs submitted a Form DS-260 on March 31, 2023, and NVC confirmed that Plaintiffs were documentarily qualified on April 27, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
So, the first factors— among the “most important” ones, Da Costa, 80 F.4th at 340—cut against Plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor likewise tilts against Plaintiffs. If the Court grants the relief they seek, they would suddenly be prioritized over so many others who likewise await action on their visa applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Dr. Raziyeh Behzad Mehr and her family are Iranian citizens and residents.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02197
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19)
Filed
July 25, 2024
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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.