Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

AGHABEIGI v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of ColumbiaColleen Kollar-KotellyDecided March 29, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01167

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
Because Congress has provided no statutory timeframe indicating how quickly it requires the State Department to adjudicate and re-adjudicate visa applications, TRAC factor two is inapplicable.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted a Form DS-160, Online Nonimmigrant Visa Application, that day
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff is seeking to compel a determination on his application, not asking the Court to issue another decision on a refused visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [11] Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [11] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ [11] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 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
The Court shall therefore DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court shall therefore DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that agency action has been “unreasonably delayed” under the TRAC factors and, therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Months pending 20 months from the application to the suit; 31.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff began the process of obtaining an F-2 non-immigrant visa on August 25, 2021.
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
In sum, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors do not lend credence to Plaintiff Aghabeigi’s claim.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Simply put, the inquiry begins and ends with Defendants’ consistent application of the “first-in, first-out” methodology.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected; Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
As will be explained below, the Court rejects Defendants’ contention that the consular non-reviewability doctrine precludes the Court from reviewing the adjudication of Mr. Aghabeigi’s visa application.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Izad Aghabeigi is an Iranian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01167
Filed
April 27, 2023
Ended
March 29, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
337 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.