Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ASADI v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided August 15, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01953

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 Zahra Asadi, an Iranian citizen, brings this suit to compel Defendants the U.S. Department of State and Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, to adjudicate her visa application
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a K-1 visa application
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
to adjudicate her visa application, which has now been stuck in administrative processing for approximately twenty-one months.
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. 5) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Alternatively, Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim of unreasonable delay under the APA or Mandamus Act.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
Months pending 7.6 months from the application to the suit; 20.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a K-1 visa application and, on November 17, 2022, she interviewed with a consular official at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia.
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
The first and second TRAC factors weigh in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Put slightly differently, granting Plaintiff’s requested relief would “necessarily come at the expense of” applicants who, like Plaintiff, have likely also been waiting for months or years for their visas to be adjudicated.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff, an Iranian citizen, is engaged to Hossein Haddad, a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01953
Filed
July 6, 2023
Ended
August 16, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
407 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.