Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AFSHAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaAmit P. MehtaDecided February 26, 2026No. 1:24-cv-03397

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
After Plaintiff filed her visa application and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in London, the consular officer refused her application and placed it into administrative processing.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff, a British citizen and resident of the United Kingdom, seeks a B1/B2 nonimmigrant visa to visit her family in the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
After Plaintiff filed her visa application and attended an interview at the U.S. Embassy in London, the consular officer refused her application and placed it into administrative processing.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court dismisses the claim on the first and third grounds.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff accordingly has not been denied any substantive or procedural due process rights because of the delay in her visa application’s processing.
Months pending 21 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
At the time of this opinion, her application has been in administrative processing for a little over 21 months.
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
Thus, the first two factors weigh in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Indeed, Defendants in this case have supplied this widely accepted rule of reason by noting the agency’s queue-based approach.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
For the time being, Plaintiff’s application remains refused, Ex. G, and the consular officer has no clear duty to act under Section 555(b).
Nationality United Kingdom Read by a model
Plaintiff, a British citizen and resident of the United Kingdom, seeks a B1/B2 nonimmigrant visa to visit her family in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03397
Filed
December 5, 2024
Ended
February 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
448 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.