Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

PARSA v. BLINKEN

District of ColumbiaRandolph D. MossDecided March 28, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01638

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 the Secretary of State, and by extension other officials in the State Department, have the authority to direct consular officials to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ applications, they are properly named in the lawsuit.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
plaintiffs’ DS-160 nonimmigrant F-1 visa applications
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
In short, Defendants’ arguments fail because Plaintiffs seek the completion of administrative processing, not the re-adjudication of alreadyrendered decisions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, will be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On August 7, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5.
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, Dkt. 5, will be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5, will be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court thus concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay under the APA and are also not entitled to mandamus relief.
Months pending 6.7 months from the application to the suit; 16.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
they each completed their respective visa interviews at the United States Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia in November and December of 2022.
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
Factors one and two favor Defendants in this case.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
If the Court were to grant the relief requested, the effect would be the promotion of Plaintiffs’ applications to the detriment of other applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The Court, again, notes that “the consular non-reviewability doctrine does not bar review of undue-delay claims related to visas mired in administrative processing.”
Nationality Iran Read by a model
four unrelated citizens of Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01638
Filed
June 6, 2023
Ended
March 28, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
296 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-03-18; 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.