Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AHMED v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided November 27, 2024No. 1:24-cv-00153

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 next month, Ms. Ahmed was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and at the conclusion of the interview, her visa was refused under Section 221(g) “for the purpose of administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
In April 2019, Ms. Ahmed filed a DS-160 Application for Nonimmigrant Visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Ms. Ahmed seeks final adjudication of her visa application, which remains in “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Ms. Ahmed’s claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Ms. Ahmed’s claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED.
Months pending 57 months from the application to the suit; 67.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2019, Ms. Ahmed filed a DS-160 Application for Nonimmigrant Visa.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, this factor weighs in Ms. Ahmed’s favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Therefore, at this stage, Defendants have not offered the court any reason to believe that adjudicating Ms. Ahmed’s application would have an actual effect “on agency activities of a higher or competing priority.”
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Ms. Ahmed’s application remains in administrative processing. ECF No. 1 ¶ 26. Thus, the doctrine does not apply.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Farah Ahmed, a citizen of Pakistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-00153
Filed
January 18, 2024
Ended
December 30, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
347 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-12-19; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.