Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

HAJIZADEH v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided August 2, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01766

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
Plaintiffs Yasin Hajizadeh, a United States citizen, and his mother Azar Moghaddamkia, an Iranian national, seek to compel Defendant Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, to adjudicate Ms. Moghaddamkia’s immigrant visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Yasin Hajizadeh, a United States citizen, and his mother Azar Moghaddamkia, an Iranian national, seek to compel Defendant Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, to adjudicate Ms. Moghaddamkia’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Since then, Ms. Moghaddamkia’s visa application status on the State Department’s Consular Electronic Application Center webpage has continued to show that the case is “refused for administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Secretary Blinken’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the court will dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Secretary Blinken has moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Secretary Blinken’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint.
Months pending 0.6 months from the application to the suit; 18.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
By January 14, 2023, Plaintiffs had submitted the necessary additional forms, documentation, and fees to schedule Ms. Moghaddamkia’s interview with a consular officer.
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
Both factors favor Secretary Blinken.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Such would be the case here, where moving Ms. Moghaddamkia to the front of the visa adjudication line would merely reorder all applicants with no change in the overall timeline.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
Ms. Moghaddamkia’s visa application remains in administrative processing. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5, 28, 82, 91. Thus, the doctrine does not apply.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
his mother Azar Moghaddamkia, an Iranian national
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Yasin Hajizadeh, a United States citizen, and his mother Azar Moghaddamkia, an Iranian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01766
Filed
June 18, 2023
Ended
October 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
487 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.