Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ROUHIGILAVAN v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaG. Michael HarveyDecided August 12, 2026No. 1:24-cv-02255

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
Plaintiff brings this suit to compel the Secretary of State and the Director of the State Department’s Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of her visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Once the petition is approved, the foreign national employee, as well as his spouse and children, may apply for a nonimmigrant visa by submitting a DS-160 visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff brings this suit to compel the Secretary of State and the Director of the State Department’s Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination to complete the administrative processing and adjudication of her visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will follow Karimova’s lead on that point as well, and grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will follow Karimova’s lead on that point as well, and grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 30.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff was interviewed concerning her nonimmigrant visa application by the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
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
Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendants have a crystal-clear, nondiscretionary duty to take further action on her visa application that has been placed in administrative processing following its refusal under Section 221(g).
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Tina Rouhigilavan, an Iranian national,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02255
Filed
July 31, 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.

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.